Preach the Gospel always...

[Hevvin Machine]

Hi everybody, I suppose I should introduce myself a bit. I'm a fiftyish male American, born and raised Catholic, married, no children.

Preach the Gospel always, use words only when absolutely necessary.

This is, IMHO, the epitome of Christian teaching.
While I think that the point to having a Christian life is living and preaching the Good News, I can't very well avoid words on an internet forum. So bear with me as I stumble around trying to put my thoughts into words.

I don't much worry about theology. God can take care of Himself. We humans are expected to take care of ourselves, in the temporal sense. By taking care of ourselves, I mean that in the Christian sense of taking care of each other. I see Christianity as the best means to the goal, but I don't think that I am competent to tell other people what they should believe. I try hard to avoid judging other people, although I can be a sharp critic of their behaviour.

I don't much worry about the historicity of any particular bit of the Bible. I concern myself with questions like: "How does this apply to me?" "What can I learn from this story?' I see the Bible largely as a documentation of improvement to the human situation. Believing that this occurred by acts of human reason or the Holy Ghost is not the point. Taking part in furthering the process is the point. An atheist helping to provide medical treatment to The Least is behaving in a more Christian way than a theist whacking people for not believing.

I don't much worry about the authority of the Catholic Church. I am often incensed by official pronouncements and official misconduct. I think many of her policies are antiquated. But it's like family. You aren't expected to like everything they say or do. My brother is quite reprehensible. But he is still my brother no matter what. He doesn't like me either. Having community is what matters, not that you agree with everyone in it.

<shut up Hev>
OK
Hev

[tjakey]

Uh hu...

[Jobar]

While I won't tell you to shut up, I will say that this would be more appropriate in the Religions forum.

Since DMB may not be able to get to it for a day or two, I'm going to move it now.

Moved from Introductions to Religion

[Pope John Pol Pot II]

I agree. When we think about the spirit in the sky, where we're (presumably) going to go when we die, it is important to do it our way or be like the pine, and turn turn turn with the wind. When you believe compassion takes too much time and energy, keep telling yourself that he ain't heavy, he's my brother. Whatever you call your sweet lord- krishna krishna, Gurur Vishnu- whatever, I think we can be assured that life is just a one night stand, and providence in heaven will provide us with a helluva band.

[court and spark]

I don't much worry about theology.
Me neither!
I don't much worry about the historicity of any particular bit of the Bible.
Me neither!
I don't much worry about the authority of the Catholic Church.
Me neither!

I think I'm making a friend...

[SallyAnne]

i don't much worry about theology.
me neither!
i don't much worry about the historicity of any particular bit of the bible.
me neither!
i don't much worry about the authority of the catholic church.
me neither!

I think i'm making a friend...

lol!

[Hevvin Machine]

Uh hu...
Hello Tjakey. Nice to meet you.
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

While I won't tell you to shut up, I will say that this would be more appropriate in the Religions forum.

Since DMB may not be able to get to it for a day or two, I'm going to move it now.

Moved from Introductions to Religion
OK
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

I agree. When we think about the spirit in the sky, where we're (presumably) going to go when we die, it is important to do it our way or be like the pine, and turn turn turn with the wind. When you believe compassion takes too much time and energy, keep telling yourself that he ain't heavy, he's my brother. Whatever you call your sweet lord- krishna krishna, Gurur Vishnu- whatever, I think we can be assured that life is just a one night stand, and providence in heaven will provide us with a helluva band. Dude, your skills are so wasted here on this dufous thread. Come join us on the song title game thread!
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

I don't much worry about theology.
Me neither!
I don't much worry about the historicity of any particular bit of the Bible.
Me neither!
I don't much worry about the authority of the Catholic Church.
Me neither!

I think I'm making a friend...
Hi C&S. More friends is better!
Hev

[His Noodly Appendage]

If the process is justified and explained by false assertions (ie, if there isn't an invisible skymonster watching your thoughts, who will forgive you and remove sin, etc. it you think the right things), then surely it must be flawed.

As such, I'd say it matters a whole lot whether the assertions are factual.

[Hevvin Machine]

If the process is justified and explained by false assertions (ie, if there isn't an invisible skymonster watching your thoughts, who will forgive you and remove sin, etc. it you think the right things), then surely it must be flawed.

As such, I'd say it matters a whole lot whether the assertions are factual.Hello HNA. It is also a pleasure to meet you.
I'm not sure which process you are refering to or which assertions. Since this is my introduction thread, why don't you start asking me hard questions in a new thread of your own.
Thanks,
Hev

[David B]

If the process is justified and explained by false assertions (ie, if there isn't an invisible skymonster watching your thoughts, who will forgive you and remove sin, etc. it you think the right things), then surely it must be flawed.

As such, I'd say it matters a whole lot whether the assertions are factual.Hello HNA. It is also a pleasure to meet you.
I'm not sure which process you are refering to or which assertions. Since this is my introduction thread, why don't you start asking me hard questions in a new thread of your own.
Thanks,
Hev

Hi, Hevvin, and welcome to SC.

HNA is free to pose his questions in this thread, though, after post 3.

David

[Hevvin Machine]

Hi, Hevvin, and welcome to SC.

HNA is free to pose his questions in this thread, though, after post 3.

David Hi David, thank you.

May I make a request like the one that Oolon Colluphid made on his thread Recent Evidence for the Evils of Religion: "(I'd like to keep this to just the bad stuff; if there's good stuff someone wants to post, please do so in a separate thread.)"? Since this is my introductory thread may I ask that people only ask me questions about myself and my beliefs, instead of asking me vague questions about processes and assertions I don't even know what they're talking about?
Hev

[tjakey]

It is an amazing thing...I have enjoyed several secular boards over the years and inevitably they get inundated with Christians of various stripes ranting away, apparently under the delusion that we have not heard their shtick 1000 times before.

We know what Christians think they believe. A good many of us are ex-Christians and may well know what Christianity claims better than the Christians do. We are not impressed with the claims of having some special love, of having a relationship with the great sky god, or of knowing how WE feel about god and all of our hidden thoughts.

Really guys, we have heard it all before and we know it isn't true.

[David B]

It is an amazing thing...I have enjoyed several secular boards over the years and inevitably they get inundated with Christians of various stripes ranting away, apparently under the delusion that we have not heard their shtick 1000 times before.

We know what Christians think they believe. A good many of us are ex-Christians and may well know what Christianity claims better than the Christians do. We are not impressed with the claims of having some special love, of having a relationship with the great sky god, or of knowing how WE feel about god and all of our hidden thoughts.

Really guys, we have heard it all before and we know it isn't true.

Not all secular boards, I think. Some run their Christians off with insults pretty damn quick.

Yes, many of us have indeed heard most of it before, but the more important thing is that many of the Christians have not heard what the atheists have heard before.

Some still have the misapprehensions of their teachers concerning evolution, for instance, and ask questions like 'If we are descended from the apes, where did the apes come from?'

The value of having Christians being welcome here is so that, even if they finally reject evolution and a naturalistic world view, at least they should have an idea about what they are rejecting.

I'd hope that some at least will see the error of their ways, and, even if they keep their faith, at least will have it modified to their point that they become OECs who take the TOE on board.

David

[Lanakila]

^This. Christians are scared off of many boards. This is why many of us atheists that like to discuss religious things ended up at General Apologetics at Christian Forums. That place closed and the board sucks. I was thinking that this forum is reminding me of GA and for that I'm thankful. I tried to no avail to get TR's religion forum to get some Christians to debate against. It just never gets the discussions like here. I wonder why?

[Hevvin Machine]

It is an amazing thing...I have enjoyed several secular boards over the years and inevitably they get inundated with Christians of various stripes ranting away, apparently under the delusion that we have not heard their shtick 1000 times before.

We know what Christians think they believe. A good many of us are ex-Christians and may well know what Christianity claims better than the Christians do. We are not impressed with the claims of having some special love, of having a relationship with the great sky god, or of knowing how WE feel about god and all of our hidden thoughts.

Really guys, we have heard it all before and we know it isn't true.

What a laugh you are Tjakey. "inundated"... "ranting", who are you fooling? Nobody. Except those who prefer to be fooled.

You sound just like the Protestant minister I listened to deliver an hour long sermon about how Christians are a persecuted minority in 21st century America.:bang:
Hev

[TheBear]

Why?

[tjakey]

Thanks HM, for making my point for me. Apparently you have already decided what I know about Christians and what my experience has been with Christians. Tell you what, take a gander at the posts on this board from "Sally Ann" and then tell me about inundated and ranting.

I suspect you will post on this board in an utterly one way manner, completely ignoring anything that challenges your religious claims. (Though friend David clearly hopes for better, and so do I for that matter, I am not holding my breath.)

But have at it. Who knows, you may prove to be the exception that proves the rule.

[sohy]

Hello Hev! I like your version of Xianity and I even agree that in the US, your goals are probably best met in the church community. I'm a member of a small humanist organization, and being small and widely scattered prohibits us from doing charity work.

Although I don't personally embrace them, I like liberal versions of religion. I find my position is in the minority on most secular discussion boards, although I personally know many atheists irl that share my sentiments. I think each of us, regardless of whether we are theist or nontheist have very personal reasons for believing what we do, part of which is based on emotions. I also think that behavior is far more important than one's metaphysical beliefs. I hope we atheist members will never give you a reason to leave out of disgust with our behavior.

[tjakey]

sohy, if a person is going to hold to a religion, a liberal one is certainly better than a fundamentalist one. A lot of the ex-fundamentalists I know (and I am one of them) moved from fundamentalism to an increasingly more liberal interpretation before abandoning the religion altogether.

I think a lot of people have emotional needs that are (poorly) met by religion. I am puzzling over the idea of emotional drives to leave religion. At least in my experience the emotions hindered my leaving religion even as I realized the claims were not true.

[Lisa0315]

Hi, I am one of the Christians here too. I have seen you around, I think.

Your thread title is my favorite quote of all time. St. Francis of Assisi...

I also like Mother Gavrilla's Five Love Languages...Have you heard of her?

http://incommunion.org/articles/previous-issues/issue-35/mother-gavrilia

Lisa

[Hevvin Machine]

Why?


Hello Bear.
Because the world would be a better place for us all if we did. It's as simple as that. Nothing esoteric, nothing hard to understand. If everybody valued everybody else, even their enemies, we'd all have much better lives than we do the way things are now.

I'm not saying that the Gospel is the only way forward. Heaven knows that Christians have done some horrible things throughout history, and still do sometimes. That isn't my point. What I'm saying is that if everybody decided to embrace the ethos of the Gospel, we'd all have better lives than if we don't.
I have my own beliefs about the historicity of the Bible. I don't expect to get anywhere explaining them to the skeptics of the world(including Secular Cafe), so mostly I don't.

Hev

[tjakey]

Point to nearly any mass killing, suicide bombing, or relentless oppression of women or gay people in today's headlines and you will find religion as the driving force. The more religion we endure the less better a place the world becomes. Preaching the gospel is bad for people, societies and the future.

And the basic reason for this is pretty simple. The claims of religion are demonstrably false. To cling to it is to hold onto a lie, and nothing much good comes from clinging to a lie.

[Hevvin Machine]

Thanks HM, for making my point for me. Apparently you have already decided what I know about Christians and what my experience has been with Christians. Tell you what, take a gander at the posts on this board from "Sally Ann" and then tell me about inundated and ranting.

I suspect you will post on this board in an utterly one way manner, completely ignoring anything that challenges your religious claims. (Though friend David clearly hopes for better, and so do I for that matter, I am not holding my breath.)

But have at it. Who knows, you may prove to be the exception that proves the rule.
Ciao tjakey.
I'm not sure why you said:"you have already decided what I know about Christians and what my experience has been with Christians." I didn't mean to imply that.
I personally get pissed off at Christians quite often.

As far as I can see, Sally Anne is responding to a huge pile on. That is hardly the same as inundating and ranting.

I suspect you will post on this board in an utterly one way manner, completely ignoring anything that challenges your religious claims.
What religious claims are you refering to? I haven't made any. I will talk about what I personally believe, but that is not the same as making a claim. Point out anywhere that I have made a religious claim and I will either back it up or retract.
And I will expect the same from you. Where exactly did I say that I have already decided what you know about Christians and what your experience has been with Christians?
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

Hello Hev! I like your version of Xianity and I even agree that in the US, your goals are probably best met in the church community. I'm a member of a small humanist organization, and being small and widely scattered prohibits us from doing charity work.


Hi sohy.
You know what is so ironic. It's that there are more of my style of Christians, or most religionists, than the hateful hubristic Robertson/binLaden/Ratzinger type. We just don't get as much press as they do, because we don't seek it out. Everybody seems to think that because somebody garners media attention that they are a spokesman. The people who quietly work for Peace and Justice instead of inciting get ignored. I realize that this is mainly a function of capitalistic media. It doesn't matter how important a message is, what matters is whether it sells advertising. Rush Limbaugh sells and I don't, so he matters and I don't.
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

Hi, I am one of the Christians here too. I have seen you around, I think.

Your thread title is my favorite quote of all time. St. Francis of Assisi...

I also like Mother Gavrilla's Five Love Languages...Have you heard of her?

http://incommunion.org/articles/previous-issues/issue-35/mother-gavrilia

Lisa

I hadn't before, but now I have. Excellent!
“The first is the smile; the second is tears. The third is to touch. The fourth is prayer, and the fifth is love. With these five languages I go all around the world.”

I'm no scholar. I tend to decide things for myself, based on my own knowledge and experience. If some pundit or prophet or sage agrees with me later, I like that. But I don't change my mind if one doesn't. Mother Gavrilla, now she is awesome!

The Pope would be very angry with me if he ever noticed that I exist. Please don't get me in trouble by telling anyone, but Gravilla is better than the Pope.
Hev

[David B]

Hi, I am one of the Christians here too. I have seen you around, I think.

Your thread title is my favorite quote of all time. St. Francis of Assisi...

I also like Mother Gavrilla's Five Love Languages...Have you heard of her?

http://incommunion.org/articles/previous-issues/issue-35/mother-gavrilia

Lisa

I hadn't before, but now I have. Excellent!
“The first is the smile; the second is tears. The third is to touch. The fourth is prayer, and the fifth is love. With these five languages I go all around the world.”

I'm no scholar. I tend to decide things for myself, based on my own knowledge and experience. If some pundit or prophet or sage agrees with me later, I like that. But I don't change my mind if one doesn't. Mother Gavrilla, now she is awesome!

The Pope would be very angry with me if he ever noticed that I exist. Please don't get me in trouble by telling anyone, but Gravilla is better than the Pope.
Hev

In terms of actually doing any tangible good in the world, I'd suggests 'condoms' as more effective than smiling, crying, touching, praying or loving.

David

[Lisa0315]

Hi, I am one of the Christians here too. I have seen you around, I think.

Your thread title is my favorite quote of all time. St. Francis of Assisi...

I also like Mother Gavrilla's Five Love Languages...Have you heard of her?

http://incommunion.org/articles/previous-issues/issue-35/mother-gavrilia

Lisa

I hadn't before, but now I have. Excellent!
“The first is the smile; the second is tears. The third is to touch. The fourth is prayer, and the fifth is love. With these five languages I go all around the world.”

I'm no scholar. I tend to decide things for myself, based on my own knowledge and experience. If some pundit or prophet or sage agrees with me later, I like that. But I don't change my mind if one doesn't. Mother Gavrilla, now she is awesome!

The Pope would be very angry with me if he ever noticed that I exist. Please don't get me in trouble by telling anyone, but Gravilla is better than the Pope.
Hev

Yeah, I am kind of like that too, but instead of a Pope, I have 4 preachers in the family: My uncle, my brother, my grandfather, and my cousin. :D Then, there is the circle...if you are part of one preacher's family, you pretty much know them all. I was the black sheep when I wasn't a Christian, and now that I have these liberal leanings, I think, if they knew how deeply it runs, they would prefer me before. Few things are worse than a liberal in the fundie mind, believe me. They would see me as a Judas, prolly.

I have to admit they have been pretty supportive of being leaving my husband of 22 years which was unexpected. When I first told them, I got "We will be praying about that" from my brother, and "Get right with God and everything will work out" from my uncle. I was outraged by both because I felt that they should be my brother and my uncle instead of giving me the standard Baptist preacher's answer. Then, when I saw them in person, they were completely different about it. I think their wives must have told them off. :D

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

Hi, I am one of the Christians here too. I have seen you around, I think.

Your thread title is my favorite quote of all time. St. Francis of Assisi...

I also like Mother Gavrilla's Five Love Languages...Have you heard of her?

http://incommunion.org/articles/previous-issues/issue-35/mother-gavrilia

Lisa

I hadn't before, but now I have. Excellent!
“The first is the smile; the second is tears. The third is to touch. The fourth is prayer, and the fifth is love. With these five languages I go all around the world.”

I'm no scholar. I tend to decide things for myself, based on my own knowledge and experience. If some pundit or prophet or sage agrees with me later, I like that. But I don't change my mind if one doesn't. Mother Gavrilla, now she is awesome!

The Pope would be very angry with me if he ever noticed that I exist. Please don't get me in trouble by telling anyone, but Gravilla is better than the Pope.
Hev

In terms of actually doing any tangible good in the world, I'd suggests 'condoms' as more effective than smiling, crying, touching, praying or loving.

David

I am all for condoms actually. Protestants don't care about birth control. :D So, I get the best of both worlds.

Lisa

[David B]

I hadn't before, but now I have. Excellent!


I'm no scholar. I tend to decide things for myself, based on my own knowledge and experience. If some pundit or prophet or sage agrees with me later, I like that. But I don't change my mind if one doesn't. Mother Gavrilla, now she is awesome!

The Pope would be very angry with me if he ever noticed that I exist. Please don't get me in trouble by telling anyone, but Gravilla is better than the Pope.
Hev

In terms of actually doing any tangible good in the world, I'd suggests 'condoms' as more effective than smiling, crying, touching, praying or loving.

David

I am all for condoms actually. Protestants don't care about birth control. :D So, I get the best of both worlds.

Lisa

Yes, I know that. It was a little dig at Catholicism, expressed rather moderately considering my outrage at the disease, the deaths of women in backstreet abortionists, the children being born unwanted into dire poverty...that result from far too many people taking seriously the pronouncements on sex from those who take a Catholic theological stance on it, and, for that matter, a theological stance which far from always represents the actual behaviour of the priesthood.

David

[Hevvin Machine]

Point to nearly any mass killing, suicide bombing, or relentless oppression of women or gay people in today's headlines and you will find religion as the driving force.


((tjakey))
No, religion is not the driving force behind Anti-Life behaviour. Religion is a powerful force in the lives of most people. So when some high muckety-muck wants to do something evil, he often invokes religion. Bush couldn't very well invoke capitalism, and honestly say: "We're off to liberate the second largest reserves of oil in the world". He had to say: "We are off to save America from WMDs and Israel and mumble mumble mum
He had to invoke religion. But religion was not the driving force. It was just the excuse. T'was always thus.
Hev

[Lisa0315]

In terms of actually doing any tangible good in the world, I'd suggests 'condoms' as more effective than smiling, crying, touching, praying or loving.

David

I am all for condoms actually. Protestants don't care about birth control. :D So, I get the best of both worlds.

Lisa

Yes, I know that. It was a little dig at Catholicism, expressed rather moderately considering my outrage at the disease, the deaths of women in backstreet abortionists, the children being born unwanted into dire poverty...that result from far too many people taking seriously the pronouncements on sex from those who take a Catholic theological stance on it, and, for that matter, a theological stance which far from always represents the actual behaviour of the priesthood.

David

You know I am pro-life but I agree with much you have said here. They can't change though David. If they did, then, they would have to admit fallibility of the church. Infallibility of the church, (and anything spoken from the chair) is a cornerstone of Catholic beliefs. Without it, a lot would crumble.

Lisa

[Hevvin Machine]

In terms of actually doing any tangible good in the world, I'd suggests 'condoms' as more effective than smiling, crying, touching, praying or loving.

David I would disagree, and I have some facts to back my opinion up with.

Since RoevWade and the free availabilty of condoms there are more children born without competent parents than ever. Look at the statistics. There are more children being born now who don't have a parent who can take care of themselves, much less care adequately for a child, than ever.
Hev

[David B]

I am all for condoms actually. Protestants don't care about birth control. :D So, I get the best of both worlds.

Lisa

Yes, I know that. It was a little dig at Catholicism, expressed rather moderately considering my outrage at the disease, the deaths of women in backstreet abortionists, the children being born unwanted into dire poverty...that result from far too many people taking seriously the pronouncements on sex from those who take a Catholic theological stance on it, and, for that matter, a theological stance which far from always represents the actual behaviour of the priesthood.

David

You know I am pro-life but I agree with much you have said here. They can't change though David. If they did, then, they would have to admit fallibility of the church. Infallibility of the church, (and anything spoken from the chair) is a cornerstone of Catholic beliefs. Without it, a lot would crumble.

Lisa

It is crumbling.

Sadly, though, many of those losing faith in the Catholic Church are going from the frying pan into the fire, by moving to fundie protestantism.

It's not uncommon for people to do things like that - there are a helluva lot of people who were in the cult I was pretty deep into a few decades ago who have moved onto different gurus, some more benign, some less, after seeing that our leader had feet of clay.

And then again, there are still the True Believers, like David Lean and John Hagelin.

http://hagelin.org/about.html

David

[TheBear]

Why?


Hello Bear.
Because the world would be a better place for us all if we did. It's as simple as that. Nothing esoteric, nothing hard to understand. If everybody valued everybody else, even their enemies, we'd all have much better lives than we do the way things are now.
Taoism and Buddhism are jockeying between the number one and number two slots of the world's most peaceful religions.

Something to think about...... ;)

[TheBear]

The Jains are up there too.

[lpetrich]

Since RoevWade and the free availabilty of condoms there are more children born without competent parents than ever. Look at the statistics. There are more children being born now who don't have a parent who can take care of themselves, much less care adequately for a child, than ever.
1. How is that supposed to be the case?

2. What cause and effect are you implying?

[Jobar]

The Janes are up there too.

That's "Jains".

[TheBear]

I'm not saying that the Gospel is the only way forward. Heaven knows that Christians have done some horrible things throughout history, and still do sometimes.
Sometimes??? :D

Over 93 percent of prison inmates in the US are self-identified as Christians. The Catholic Church wants to ban the use condoms in HIV/AIDS infected communities and villages throughout Africa. Some church leaders refer to Katrina as God punishing us. Many Christians, (and most fundies), are strong supporters of the death penalty. Among competing nations, we are falling behind in the sciences. We have the creationism crowd to thank for that.

The list goes on. I'm not impressed.

[TheBear]

The Janes are up there too.

That's "Jains".
Thanks for the correction. I got a little sloppy there. (having a few beers today :cheers: )

[tjakey]

Point to nearly any mass killing, suicide bombing, or relentless oppression of women or gay people in today's headlines and you will find religion as the driving force.


((tjakey))
No, religion is not the driving force behind Anti-Life behaviour. Religion is a powerful force in the lives of most people. So when some high muckety-muck wants to do something evil, he often invokes religion. Bush couldn't very well invoke capitalism, and honestly say: "We're off to liberate the second largest reserves of oil in the world". He had to say: "We are off to save America from WMDs and Israel and mumble mumble mum
He had to invoke religion. But religion was not the driving force. It was just the excuse. T'was always thus.
Hev

"He had to invoke religion." I think you just made my point for me, (again). Religious people always claim that religion isn't the cause of much of the evil we see in the world. But like religion's other claims, a close look proves the claims to be lies.

It takes religion's assurance that god hates gay people, that god put women below men as punishment, that god's command is go "go forth and multiply," and that god is going to burn the infidels and non-believers in hell for eternity forever so butchering them is perfectly acceptable and even commanded, for the mayhem to commence.

Religion is a powerful in the lives of some people. Unfortunately the "power" results in oppression, hate, and war.

[sohy]

I think a lot of people have emotional needs that are (poorly) met by religion. I am puzzling over the idea of emotional drives to leave religion. At least in my experience the emotions hindered my leaving religion even as I realized the claims were not true.


I don't think we can ever totally separate our emotions from our ability to see things rationally. We are not Spock. ;) For me, it's true that it was the nonsense in Xianity that partially led me to investigate other things, but it was also my emotions that helped motivate me. I found the Xian ( fundy ) beliefs to be repugnant, horrifying, emotionally stressful. These feelings, along with the irrational nature of the beliefs, forced me to seek other ideas and beliefs.


When I finished investigating and had an aha moment, it was both a rational and an emotional time. I felt happy, relieved and satisfied. If I had felt horrified, like some new deconverts seem to feel, I may have back tracked and found a liberal version of religion that satisfied me. I just would have rationalized the parts that didn't make that much sense.

Do you remember the poster from FRDB who went by the name Classical? He and I got to know each other and talked on the phone a few times. He went from conservative Xian to atheist. He is a gay man and I'm sure that his emotions impacted his dissatisfaction about his religion. After calling himself an atheist for a short time, he seemed emotionally distressed so he went back and made up his own little version of spirituality. I haven't heard from him in awhile, so I assume that he is emotionally satisfied with his new beliefs. He was able to convince himself that he was being rational. We humans are very good at that. :D


I also think it's impossible for us to always be objective as to when we are being guided by our emotions and when we are being rational. The two are intertwined. Even when one is engaged in scientific research, there is a tendency towards bias. Bias is a result of an emotional investment of some kind. It is probably why so many experiments must be repeated by different people before the results seem credible. It helps remove the bias. Whether or not we admit it, we are all influenced by our emotions. That's not necessarily a bad thing.

I would agree that most atheists use a lot of rational arguments before making decisions about metaphysics. I just don't think most humans are capable or totally removing their emotional bias from their beliefs, or ideologies. It's okay if you don't agree. I'm just trying to explain myself a little bit.

I disagree with you that religion meets emotional needs poorly. That's true for some of us, but not for all of us. I have little doubt that my mother's and most of my client's emotional ( or spiritual if you prefer ) needs are well met by religion. It's a wonderful placebo for them. If you've ever read anything about placebos, the actual ones, not just religion, you know that they are very effective for many people. I don't think I am in a position to judge what works well for other people. I only know what works well for myself.

I apologize to Hev for going off on a tangent, but I'm pretty sure he'll forgive me.

[Barbarian]

The Janes are up there too.

That's "Jains".And I'd put them on place 1. The Digambara ("sky-clad") Jain sect, now they aren't even supposed to kill plants for covering non-essential needs like making clothing ...

[TheBear]

The Jains are up there too.And I'd put them on place 1. The Digambara ("sky-clad") Jain sect, now they aren't even supposed to kill plants for covering non-essential needs like making clothing ...
One of those sects rejects the entire notion of wearing clothes.

[Hevvin Machine]

Since RoevWade and the free availabilty of condoms there are more children born without competent parents than ever. Look at the statistics. There are more children being born now who don't have a parent who can take care of themselves, much less care adequately for a child, than ever.
1. How is that supposed to be the case?

How is what supposed to be the case? The number of unwed irresponsible parents is enormous. Is that what you are talking about?

2. What cause and effect are you implying? The high levels of sexual irresponsibility today are the cause; the result(among other things) is a high level of irresponsible parents. I don't see what's complicated about this.
I see a connection between RvW, the free availabilty of condoms, and sexual irresponsibility.
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

It takes religion's assurance that god hates gay people, that god put women below men as punishment, that god's command is go "go forth and multiply," and that god is going to burn the infidels and non-believers in hell for eternity forever so butchering them is perfectly acceptable and even commanded, for the mayhem to commence.

Religion is a powerful in the lives of some people. Unfortunately the "power" results in oppression, hate, and war. This is obviously not true. Were the decidedly atheistic societies of the Communist countries notably moral paragons? People will find whatever means they must to justify hate, oppression and violence when they are behaving badly. Sometimes they misuse religion for this purpose, but not always. When Germany invaded her neighbors in WWII it wasn't on religious grounds, because they weren't different enough religiously. It still wasn't hard for Hitler to come up with a pretext.

The flip side of this is that religion sometimes get used to justify very good things as well. There is a reason why it's the Red Cross, and not the Red Square or the Red Star.
Hev

[Hevvin Machine]

I apologize to Hev for going off on a tangent, but I'm pretty sure he'll forgive me.
Hi Sohy. Your post is much less of a tangent than many of the others. Feel free.:notworthy:
Hev

[DMB]

Since RoevWade and the free availabilty of condoms there are more children born without competent parents than ever. Look at the statistics. There are more children being born now who don't have a parent who can take care of themselves, much less care adequately for a child, than ever.
1. How is that supposed to be the case?

How is what supposed to be the case? The number of unwed irresponsible parents is enormous. Is that what you are talking about?

2. What cause and effect are you implying? The high levels of sexual irresponsibility today are the cause; the result(among other things) is a high level of irresponsible parents. I don't see what's complicated about this.
I see a connection between RvW, the free availabilty of condoms, and sexual irresponsibility.
Hev

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc? What connection do you see? A causative one?

[DMB]

There is a reason why it's the Red Cross, and not the Red Square or the Red Star.
Hev
Yes. The reason is that it was set up by a Swiss and for most of its history was run by Swiss. The Swiss national flag is a white cross on a red ground. The colours were reversed for the organisation. See this: International Committee of the Red Cross

The official symbol of the ICRC is the Red Cross on white background (the inverse of the Swiss flag) with the words "COMITE INTERNATIONAL GENEVE" circling the cross.

[SallyAnne]

Religion is a powerful in the lives of some people. Unfortunately the "power" results in oppression, hate, and war.


Then why were the two most devastating wars the world has ever witnessed, WWI and WWII, nothing to do with religion? And why have atheistic regimes like Stalin's Communism been so bloodthirsty?

[DMB]

Religion is a powerful in the lives of some people. Unfortunately the "power" results in oppression, hate, and war.


Then why were the two most devastating wars the world has ever witnessed, WWI and WWII, nothing to do with religion? And why have atheistic regimes like Soviet Communism been more bloodthirsty?

Than whom?

[SallyAnne]

Religion is a powerful in the lives of some people. Unfortunately the "power" results in oppression, hate, and war.


Then why were the two most devastating wars the world has ever witnessed, WWI and WWII, nothing to do with religion? And why have atheistic regimes like Soviet Communism been more bloodthirsty?

Than whom?

Why? If religion is supposed to be the evil of the world, then why when religion has nothing to do with these examples were they the most evil and devastating things perpetrated on the human race?

[SallyAnne]

There is a reason why it's the Red Cross, and not the Red Square or the Red Star.
Hev
Yes. The reason is that it was set up by a Swiss and for most of its history was run by Swiss. The Swiss national flag is a white cross on a red ground. The colours were reversed for the organisation. See this: International Committee of the Red Cross

The official symbol of the ICRC is the Red Cross on white background (the inverse of the Swiss flag) with the words "COMITE INTERNATIONAL GENEVE" circling the cross.


huh? Then why did they invent the Red Crescent if the Cross is only indicative of the national flag of the Swiss and nothing representative of Christianity? I thought they made the Red Crescent because there was animosity towards the Cross (as a symbol Christianity) amongst the Muslim regions.

[DMB]

There is a reason why it's the Red Cross, and not the Red Square or the Red Star.
Hev
Yes. The reason is that it was set up by a Swiss and for most of its history was run by Swiss. The Swiss national flag is a white cross on a red ground. The colours were reversed for the organisation. See this: International Committee of the Red Cross

The official symbol of the ICRC is the Red Cross on white background (the inverse of the Swiss flag) with the words "COMITE INTERNATIONAL GENEVE" circling the cross.


huh? Then why did they invent the Red Crescent if the Cross is only indicative of the national flag of the Swiss and nothing representative of Christianity? I thought they made the Red Crescent because there was animosity towards the Cross (as a symbol Christianity) amongst the Muslim regions.

Read the Wiki links. The Swiss flag, like the English flag as well as those of many other countries, features a cross because it was adopted in the middle ages when Switzerland was a Christian country.

When the ICRC was founded, it adopted a negative version of the Swiss flag.

Much later on the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement came into being. Muslim countries objected to the cross as a Christian symbol and so they founded Red Crescent societies. There have been other red symbols used besides the cross and the crescent, but the original foundation was secular, not religious.

[DMB]

Then why were the two most devastating wars the world has ever witnessed, WWI and WWII, nothing to do with religion? And why have atheistic regimes like Soviet Communism been more bloodthirsty?

Than whom?

Why? If religion is supposed to be the evil of the world, then why when religion has nothing to do with these examples were they the most evil and devastating things perpetrated on the human race?

You haven't answered my question. You said that atheistic regimes have been more bloodthirsty, and I asked "than whom?"

World wars were not a practical possibility before the 20th century. Their scale of devastation was due to improved technology combined with huge population growth. But can you justify saying that they were worse for people involved than any of the wars of the past. What about the Thirty Years War, which was fought for a religious cause (although of course in those days religion was politics)?

[SallyAnne]

Than whom?

Why? If religion is supposed to be the evil of the world, then why when religion has nothing to do with these examples were they the most evil and devastating things perpetrated on the human race?

You haven't answered my question. You said that atheistic regimes have been more bloodthirsty, and I asked "than whom?"



Than anything that had gone down in history before. WWII is the worst conflict in human history so far.

You may say, "oh that's only because of technology" -- but religion wasn't the reason for WWII, and religion wasn't the reason for Stalin being a tyrant because he headed an atheistic regime.

[SallyAnne]

World wars were not a practical possibility before the 20th century. Their scale of devastation was due to improved technology combined with huge population growth. But can you justify saying that they were worse for people involved than any of the wars of the past. What about the Thirty Years War, which was fought for a religious cause (although of course in those days religion was politics)?


Yes that's right. Because the state and church were one, they were mainly theocracies.

So one would expect that in secular societies, especially atheistic ones (like Stalin's))which purposely removes the power from religion and gives it to the state, there should be less wars and oppression, but Stalin's regime and even Hitler have proven that that isn't the case and that an even worse tyranny can transpire in place of religion.

The point is, if someone is trying to argue that the world's tyranny and power abuse is only due to the scourge of religion, then WWII and Stalin's regime is evidence that that's not the case.

[SallyAnne]

Religion is a powerful in the lives of some people. Unfortunately the "power" results in oppression, hate, and war.


Care to explain what "power" motivated Stalin?

[nygreenguy]

Then why were the two most devastating wars the world has ever witnessed, WWI and WWII, nothing to do with religion? And why have atheistic regimes like Stalin's Communism been so bloodthirsty?

"... I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work." - Hitler

"Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy, he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of god. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of god..."
-Hitler biographer, John Toland

Hey, Im just sayin....

[DMB]

Stalin, like many dictators seems to have been motivated by personal lust for power. But he was also motivated by "Marxism-Leninism", an ideology that is not implied by atheism and had the trappings of a pseudo-religion.

But the point I am trying to get across to you is that describing that regime as the most bloodthirsty in history requires justification. I think in any case that you are setting up a strawman by assuming that anyone thinks that the cause of all nasty human conflict is religious or ideological. Look at the destruction inflicted by the Huns, for example. I don't see how you can argue that WW2 or Stalinism was worse than that in terms of the atrocities that were perpetrated or in the suffering of the victims.

I instanced the Thirty Years War as an example of a devastating war that did have a religious cause. Torturing and killing people in the name of religion has been an enduring human pastime. Do you think that the witch or heretic burnt at the stake or the contemporary woman who is stoned to death for zinna suffer less than the Jew killed in the Holocaust? Did the prisoners of the Gulag suffer more than the slaves of the Barbary pirates?

I think it is extremely simplistic to say that WW2 is the "worst conflict in human history" so far, when all that is certain is that it is the one on the largest scale.

[VoxRat]

Stalin, like many dictators seems to have been motivated by personal lust for power. But he was also motivated by "Marxism-Leninism", an ideology that is not implied by atheism and had the trappings of a pseudo-religion.
...The Marxism-Leninism under Stalin was indistinguishable from a religion, AFAICT.

[Barbarian]

Then why were the two most devastating wars the world has ever witnessed, WWI and WWII, nothing to do with religion?At least the Great War broke the backbone of Christianity in Europe. That's a net gain, although surely not worth the sacrifice.And why have atheistic regimes like Stalin's Communism been so bloodthirsty?
They weren't atheistic; you cannot show any of the brutality of those regimes stemming from atheism, since atheism has no commandments to cause anything. Contrary to widespread rumors, the Soviet Union never even outlawed religion as such - that was Albania, under Enver Hoxha. Communist regimes were implementations of an ideology by totalitarian means, just like theocracies are. I grew up in Romania during the years of Ceausescu and I saw it as anything but atheistic. Consider the following parallels with religious power:

There were the prophets, Marx and Engels (with proper beards, no less) who had delivered the correct vision of history's end goal. There were the martyrs, early union organizers and suchlike who got killed by the brutal police and had now statues on squares and streets named after them. The Party was the holder of all wisdom, the only entity that could not, by the nature of things, be ever wrong, and the only entity who could properly interpret the writings of Marx and Engels. (We've never actually read them, and the general feeling was that it was suspicious to do so - many internal dissidents started their career as wannabe reformers of Communism, not enemies of it, and they started by studying what was written.)

It was extremely dangerous to share your discontent with how things were done, especially in front of your children who might unwillingly give you away (it is easy to see how, by this mechanism, children would be naturally brainwashed into a cult their parents do not buy into. This is how Christianity and Islam could be spread by force, I'd expect; the subjuged generation pretended to be true believers in front of their children, and those children became true believers indeed). It was even dangerous to make jokes at the expense of the regime (easy to see how not 40 but 40x40 years of such oppression caused such a prohibition to become culturally internalized, resulting in today's cultural taboo of mocking religious faith). Dissenters were tortured by various means, allegedly to confess to primitive conspiracies, but in fact to instill fear in the population. Contact with outsiders (even people from other Socialist countries) was severely discouraged.

Other religions, like Christianity, were recognized first as competitors in the same arena, then as organizations not totally dependent on the state. As a result, they were persecuted - at first physically, but in my time in a really artful non-violent manner. We as children were required to participate in all kinds of "communist activities" in our spare time, in order not to allow us to have any spare time. Explicit sexuality in art and publications was repressed, condoms were alleged to be useless (pre-perforated - this was never substantiated, but rumor engineering was a forte of the Communist state security forces). Abortion was outlawed (we needed to breed, after all). Mandatory mass gynecological exams for female students were introduced with no stated reason (to see if they had an abortion recently).

There were so-called Materialism and Marxism courses mandatorily introduced into the school curriculum. My M Sc thesis, "Simplification of words in non-commutative groups", as dry a mathematical paper as you can get, had to list Ceausescu's speech given at the twelfth (? maybe thirteenth ?) congress of the Party on the first position in the literature reference list. One could not expect a career without actively supporting the Party line (compare this to the Christian claim of "every major logician of the Christian era was a Christian" well duh, the others were executed). Official buildings for conducting Party business were monumental temples of ideology.

TV programmes converged to being 100% reports about the deeds and sayings of comrade Nicolae Ceausescu. The same happened with newspapers, which at a time consisted entirely of transcripts of speeches delivered by the Great Leader, the Genius of the Carpathians. At the same time, in the last year of the dictature there was scarcely any toilet paper available in the commerce, and us slaves combined these two fact into a useful solution.

Elsewhere, it got much worse. Lenin was embalmed and huge queues of people were waiting in the cold to be allowed to look at the corpse. The birth of Kim Jong-il was surrounded by miraculous events.

I think this much similarity of Communist regimes to theocracies is no accident. I am opposed to any religion because of my experience with these regimes. A society dominated by a religion will be a variant of Communist Romania, with some differences in slogans, clothing of the leaders and instruments of torture. Those are superficial differences, though; the point is that an ideology at odds with reality must enforce itself through brutality, and if an enforcement agent of this brutality is created, it will necessarily be misused by criminal elements in order to elevate them into absolute, theocracy-style power. Every religious person is a tool of the forces wanting to recreate this sort of nightmare, whether they agree with it or not. At the very least, by their mere presence they help the idiotic masses think "we cannot be wrong, we are so numerous".

[dancer_rnb]

Religion is a powerful in the lives of some people. Unfortunately the "power" results in oppression, hate, and war.


Then why were the two most devastating wars the world has ever witnessed, WWI and WWII, nothing to do with religion? And why have atheistic regimes like Stalin's Communism been so bloodthirsty?

Not so sure religion wasn't involved in the cause of WWI. Russia and a lot of the Balkans were Orthodox states. The Ottoman Empire was Islamic. Austria Hungary was Catholic.

I think an argument can be made that the rise of Russia as the great Orthodox power started the whole mess.

[Barbarian]

And why have atheistic regimes like Stalin's Communism been so bloodthirsty?Still going on about this one. SallyAnne: do you think atheism made them bloodthirsty? How exactly did "I don't buy any of this bullshit" cause people to kill millions and suppress opposing views?

I kind of expect to hear the "nothing prevents atheists from committing heinous crimes" argument, but that is bunk; it is not enough to have nothing to prevent them; you need actual encouragement, dogma making mass murder a mandatory exercise, and you won't find it in atheism.

Either you think we atheists are all wannabe mass murderers, in which case you should say so clearly, or you cannot ascribe Stalin's crimes to his atheism and consequently you should not be so trigger-happy to lay all his deeds at our feet.

[Lisa0315]

I have to agree with the atheists here. From a Christian perspective (or any other religion for that matter, even some kinds of Satanism), the goal is to make oneself better via or because of the deity. However, it is not religion that makes us good or evil. In effect, if there were no religion and no belief, you would still have good people and bad people. I think the bad people might be a little worse, but not believing in of itself does not make one immoral or evil.

In fact, I will go further and say that in many cases, fanatical belief is far more evil than no belief at all.

Lisa

[VoxRat]

Stalin, like many dictators seems to have been motivated by personal lust for power. But he was also motivated by "Marxism-Leninism", an ideology that is not implied by atheism and had the trappings of a pseudo-religion.
...The Marxism-Leninism under Stalin was indistinguishable from a religion, AFAICT.

... [saying what I said, only a whole lot better.]

:notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

[Bartender]

What I'm saying is that if everybody decided to embrace the ethos of the Gospel, we'd all have better lives than if we don't.

Cool. That means slavery can return!

:bang:

[Lisa0315]

SallyAnne,
I am curious. Have you ever heard of these arguments before? Prolly, four years ago, I was saying some of the same things as you, but I got schooled. There are so many fallacies out there about atheists. Atheists = immoral is one of them, as is communists = atheists.

Lisa

[tjakey]

This is obviously not true. Were the decidedly atheistic societies of the Communist countries notably moral paragons? People will find whatever means they must to justify hate, oppression and violence when they are behaving badly. Sometimes they misuse religion for this purpose, but not always. When Germany invaded her neighbors in WWII it wasn't on religious grounds, because they weren't different enough religiously. It still wasn't hard for Hitler to come up with a pretext.

The flip side of this is that religion sometimes get used to justify very good things as well. There is a reason why it's the Red Cross, and not the Red Square or the Red Star.
Hev

Not so obvious, unless you are going to dismiss a good portion of Jewish / Christian / Islamic religious history. I tend to lump them all together simply because they all claim "the god of Abraham" as their ultimate source. And since this god was really the tribal war god of an ancient (and long dead) band of wanderers of some 4000 years ago, the violence of the religious traditions based on the god is understandable.

The "atheistic societies of Communist Countries" were no more or less moral than the US so far as I can see. We are a country who prosecutes unnecessary wars, holds prisoners without charge, tortures, and occasionally manages to kill people who are being tortured. The US numbers might be smaller (might) but that has little impact on morality so far as I am concerned. In addition the US is the arms merchant to the world and our military spending amounts to more than that of the rest of the planet, combined. It is our nuclear arsenal which threatens the world, our satellites that spy on every inch of every country, and our weapons that are usually found on both sides of a conflict. (The first fighter plane shot down by the then new F15 was an F4, both American made.)

While we spend our money on war, we have no universal health care system, we have a higher infant mortality rate then the rest of the Western world, our educational system is failing, and we have more and more children living in poverty. We refuse to control gun violence and we make regular use of executions. We have a higher percentage of our population locked up behind bars than any other functioning country, many for non-violent crimes that "religious" people insist must be punished. Your claim that somehow "Communist Countries" are immoral while "Christian Countries" are moral is utterly empty.

Leadership in any country has one main goal, to stay in power. The tactics they use to do that vary from country to country and generation to generation, but the tactics of the "Communists" look awful similar to that of the Popes and Christian kings of the dark ages.

I looked up the history of the Red Cross. From what I read it seems an utterly secular organization that had its start in Europe. However it started it is certainly a secular organization now.

[tjakey]

I have to agree with the atheists here. From a Christian perspective (or any other religion for that matter, even some kinds of Satanism), the goal is to make oneself better via or because of the deity. However, it is not religion that makes us good or evil. In effect, if there were no religion and no belief, you would still have good people and bad people. I think the bad people might be a little worse, but not believing in of itself does not make one immoral or evil.

In fact, I will go further and say that in many cases, fanatical belief is far more evil than no belief at all.

Lisa

"Good men will always do good. Evil men will always do evil. But to get good men to do evil, that takes religion."

[SallyAnne]

I have to agree with the atheists here. From a Christian perspective (or any other religion for that matter, even some kinds of Satanism), the goal is to make oneself better via or because of the deity. However, it is not religion that makes us good or evil. In effect, if there were no religion and no belief, you would still have good people and bad people. I think the bad people might be a little worse, but not believing in of itself


Yeah exactly which is the point I'm trying to make, because someone said this:

"Religion is a powerful in the lives of some people. Unfortunately the "power" results in oppression, hate, and war."

But I'm saying that even without religion, there is the potential for tyranny and "oppression, hate, and war" to arise. But when people make such statements about religion, they think that it's religion which is the cause for the world's evil, I was trying to say it isn't as simply black and white as that.

[Lisa0315]

I have to agree with the atheists here. From a Christian perspective (or any other religion for that matter, even some kinds of Satanism), the goal is to make oneself better via or because of the deity. However, it is not religion that makes us good or evil. In effect, if there were no religion and no belief, you would still have good people and bad people. I think the bad people might be a little worse, but not believing in of itself


Yeah exactly which is the point I'm trying to make, because someone said this:

"Religion is a powerful in the lives of some people. Unfortunately the "power" results in oppression, hate, and war."

But I'm saying that even without religion, there is the potential for tyranny and "oppression, hate, and war" to arise. But when people make such statements about religion, they think that it's religion which is the cause for the world's evil, I was trying to say it isn't as simply black and white as that.

Yeah, but didn't you say that the Stalin regime were atheists? Cuz, they prolly weren't actually.

[SallyAnne]

SallyAnne,
I am curious. Have you ever heard of these arguments before? Prolly, four years ago, I was saying some of the same things as you, but I got schooled. There are so many fallacies out there about atheists. Atheists = immoral is one of them, as is communists = atheists.

Lisa


So what about the fallacy in this:

"Religion is a powerful in the lives of some people. Unfortunately the "power" results in oppression, hate, and war."

When atheists use it the other way around, you agree with them do you?

[SallyAnne]

I have to agree with the atheists here. From a Christian perspective (or any other religion for that matter, even some kinds of Satanism), the goal is to make oneself better via or because of the deity. However, it is not religion that makes us good or evil. In effect, if there were no religion and no belief, you would still have good people and bad people. I think the bad people might be a little worse, but not believing in of itself


Yeah exactly which is the point I'm trying to make, because someone said this:

"Religion is a powerful in the lives of some people. Unfortunately the "power" results in oppression, hate, and war."

But I'm saying that even without religion, there is the potential for tyranny and "oppression, hate, and war" to arise. But when people make such statements about religion, they think that it's religion which is the cause for the world's evil, I was trying to say it isn't as simply black and white as that.

Yeah, but didn't you say that the Stalin regime were atheists? Cuz, they prolly weren't actually.



I meant that Stalin's regime was a primarily atheist one (as opposed to a theocracy) where the power is held by the state and not religion. And no, there were still believers under the Stalin regime but the power belonged to Stalin's dictatorship which was communist, the power was held by the state not the church.

[Matty]

big difference between regimes that are primarily of one type or the other and people doing their nasty shit in the name of their beliefs though. I dont think Stalins atrocities were done in the cause of atheism were they?

Welcome Hev.

Count me amongst those who though i may and do congratulate you and other non fundies on being a moral good guy, think you do so despite "moderates" or "moral religious types" people pick the examples that best serve their innate morality, not are swayed by them to adopt a diferent moral outlook. The people who take the lot more to heart are usually nasty bastards and self serving fundies like those you distanced yourself from early on in the thread.

My question is, if belief in any religion or offshoot belief system, even a personal one, is the basis of both good and very bad examples of morality. Why not be done with it and instead be nice to people for its own sake or your innate morality as opposed to what some quite possibly fictitious book tells you?

Way i see it, that type of morality is much more honest you dont have such institutional support for people like mother teresa and the pope who claim, and are hailed, as being good/holy/doing gods work, by their chosen sect, but whos actions speak for themselves and are actually pretty abhorrent when you look a bit closer. Of course they both fall in the abhorrent fundy camps anyway.

[SallyAnne]

big difference between regimes that are primarily of one type or the other and people doing their nasty shit in the name of their beliefs though. I dont think Stalins atrocities were done in the cause of atheism were they?



Stalin's regime wasn't a theocracy. Religion didn't have the power, the State did.

So my question stands, even when you remove religion from the equation, how come evil is still perpetrated?

[Matty]

But are you saying there was a lack of power of belief in the Stalin state (true) or that the actions of said state were done in the name of atheism (false) an a-theocracy if you like? Because those are two very different things are they not?

[SallyAnne]

But are you saying there was a lack of belief in the Stalin state (true) or that the actions of said state were done i nthe name of atheism (false) an a-theocracy if you like?


I'm saying that when religion is removed from power, evil is still perpetrated in the name of something else. But you people here, seem to want to lay all the world's evil at religion's door.

[Matty]

Not at all, but evil is very rarely if ever perpetrated in the name of atheism is it? Can you give me a single example where the lack of belief was an overriding ethic in causing genocide or similar? the example above was a political cause not a belief based one.

That sort of evil is in the realm of religion fair and square because atheism doesnt teach anything or tell you who is and isnt worthy of your good or evil attention. There are no gospel writings for lack of belief to be interpreted for your own evil ends. I think PEOPLE do the evil, but there are huge benefits to religious power in both justifying your horrible actions (see Hitler) and also providing yourself with devout pawns willing to do it for you in exchange for promised benefits after they die (see every religious genocide ever committed, and there are lots) . Whether such people actually believe in what they do as opposed to simply use it, is a different matter but certainly many horrors are committed and have been committed in the name of religion, and as far as i know none, ever explicitly committed in the casue of lack of belief.

And are you saying that many of the worlds true evils HAVENT been committed in the name of various gods or other supernatural beings? Because i'll have to ask you to back that up, if so.

[SallyAnne]

Not at all, but evil is very rarely if ever perpetrated in the name of atheism is it? Can you give me a single example where the lack of belief was an overriding ethic in causing genocide or similar?

That is in the realm of religion fair and square because atheism doesnt teach anything or tell you who is and isnt worthy of your good or evil attention. There are no gospel writings for lack of belief to be interpreted for your own evil ends. I think PEOPLE do the evil, but there are huge benefits to religious power in both justifying your horrible actions (see Hitler) and also providing yourself with devout pawns willing to do it for you in exchange for promised benefits after they die (see every religious genocide ever committed, and there are lots)

And are you saying that many of the worlds true evils HAVENT been committed in the name of various gods or other supernatural beings? Because i'll have to ask you to back that up, if so.


So basically you're agreeing with Lisa. When evil is committed, it's all religion's fault even when religion has nothing to do with it because atheists never do anything evil. Ok, I guess that's how you folks feel about it in here.

So when someone says this:

"Religion is a powerful in the lives of some people. Unfortunately the "power" results in oppression, hate, and war."

Am I to take it that religion is always the reason for "oppression, hate, and war" even when religion doesn't have the power like it didn't under the Stalin regime where the power belonged to the State?

[Matty]

That isnt what i said. Is it?
Sure evil is committed when there is no religious input. For political ends, territorial ends, racist ends, economic ends, etc etc. However none of those are examples of evil carried out in the cause of a lack of belief ,whereas many evils are perpetrated in the name of a particular belief.

Thats hardly even open for question is it?


Like i said, give me an (well lots preferably if we are comparing TO religiously inspired evil acts, but one will do) example of such evil carried out in the name of atheism and you may have a point, but i know of none

[SallyAnne]

I think PEOPLE do the evil, but there are huge benefits to religious power in both justifying your horrible actions (see Hitler)


Hitler was inspired by Helena Blatvasky who inverted the Christian theme by calling Lucifer the real Christ, as opposed to Jesus Christ. She believed that the fallen angel (satan) was the true light bearer and not Jesus. Hitler's spiritual beliefs were strongly influenced by Theosophy and the New Age.

So when you people here refer to Hitler as acting in accordance with his Lord, he wasn't meaning Jesus Christ, he was inspired by the Theosopohic writings of Helena Blavatsky who hated Jews and fueled anti-semite hatred. It wasn't Christian inspired, but anti-christ.

[Matty]

even when he made comments like.

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

"I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so."

Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.

“I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.”

Are you saying his "Lord" was actually Satan? Because thats a post hoc goalpost shift if ever i saw one. Esp seeing as he cites catholicism directly, now whilst some fundie baptist types view catholics as idolators and none true believers, i dont think i heard ANY of them ever claim that catholics follow Satan.

[David B]

I have to agree with the atheists here. From a Christian perspective (or any other religion for that matter, even some kinds of Satanism), the goal is to make oneself better via or because of the deity. However, it is not religion that makes us good or evil. In effect, if there were no religion and no belief, you would still have good people and bad people. I think the bad people might be a little worse, but not believing in of itself does not make one immoral or evil.

In fact, I will go further and say that in many cases, fanatical belief is far more evil than no belief at all.

Lisa

"Good men will always do good. Evil men will always do evil. But to get good men to do evil, that takes religion."

In my view, it takes ideology, of which religion is a substantial subset.

David

[SallyAnne]

Are you saying his "Lord" was actually Satan? Because thats a post hoc goalpost shift if ever i saw one. Esp seeing as he cites catholicism directly, now whilst some fundie baptist types view catholics as idolators and none true believers, i dont think i heard ANY of them ever claim that catholics follow Satan.



I'm not claiming that about Catholics either. I'm saying that what inspired Hitler was not merely a standard form of Catholicism, even if he may have appeared to refer to Catholicism as the public face of his religious reasonings. His main influence was Helena Blavatsky, a Victorian occult mystic and yes, that is satan worship (theosophy). Hitlers spiritual beliefs were Occultist, and derived by the satanic anti-semite theosophy of the Lucifer Trust under Helena Blavatsky, it's an inversion of Christian beliefs (not Catholic) where theosophists believe that the real Christ is really Lucifer.

[Lisa0315]

SallyAnne,
I am curious. Have you ever heard of these arguments before? Prolly, four years ago, I was saying some of the same things as you, but I got schooled. There are so many fallacies out there about atheists. Atheists = immoral is one of them, as is communists = atheists.

Lisa



So what about the fallacy in this:

"Religion is a powerful in the lives of some people. Unfortunately the "power" results in oppression, hate, and war."

When atheists use it the other way around, you agree with them do you?

Actually, I agree with that quote 110%. History shows nothing except religion being the catalyst for great evil.

That does not mean that religion has not done good things for society as well. I am just not sure that the good has outweighed the bad at least from a purely human perspective. From a spiritual view, I suppose the salvation of a few is worth the damnation of many, or should I say, better than everyone being damned.

Now, if you view religion from a social evolution point of view, one could say that as religion has grown up, religion has gotten better for society. But, then, you could turn that around and argue that religion has gotten better where society has grown up.

Honestly, SallyAnne, I am not too happy with religion in general, and even to the point that I question the benevolence of our God. I just wish that I understood His purpose in allowing people to do such evil in His name. Preachers go around saying that God is striking this nation down or that person down or that group down for sin. I ask why isn't God striking down the false teachers out there, the ones who by their perverse doctrines are causing so much unbelief. The answer is the same, age of grace, I know, but still.

There are Christians who seem to rub their hands gleefully at the idea of some folks going to hell as if that will win the argument once and for all. I have moments when I am gleeful about the idea that some of those same folks are going to get the ole "I Never Knew Ya!"

Hell, I might be one of those, I don't know. Maybe, I am as deceived as some believe. Maybe, I am backslid, lost my salvation, going to hell, etc., but I will just be damned if I am going to hate people, groups, or tell other people how to live their lives. Just not my style. Never was, although, I sure as hell gave it a good try.

Lisa

[David B]

Are you saying his "Lord" was actually Satan? Because thats a post hoc goalpost shift if ever i saw one. Esp seeing as he cites catholicism directly, now whilst some fundie baptist types view catholics as idolators and none true believers, i dont think i heard ANY of them ever claim that catholics follow Satan.



I'm not claiming that about Catholics either. I'm saying that what inspired Hitler was not merely a standard form of Catholicism, even if he may have appeared to refer to Catholicism. His main influence was Helena Blavatsky, a Victorian theosophic mystic and yes, that is satan worship. Hitlers spiritual beliefs were Occultist, and inspired by satanic anti-semite theosophy of the Lucifer Trust.

Could you point to some evidence for this, please.

I've come across the name Hitler before, and Blavatsky, but don't recall seeing this claim before.

David

[Matty]

I'm not claiming that about Catholics either. I'm saying that what inspired Hitler was not merely a standard form of Catholicism, even if he may have appeared to refer to Catholicism. His main influence was Helena Blavatsky, a Victorian occult mystic and yes, that is satan worship (theosophy). Hitlers spiritual beliefs were Occultist, and derived by the satanic anti-semite theosophy of the Lucifer Trust under Helena Blavatsky.

so even when he is citing his actions specifically as the lords work, you think he meant the opposite?

not saying he didnt, but i never heard him referred to as a satanist before. Usually religious types claim he was an atheist when they try and distance themselves from his beliefs.

[SallyAnne]

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.

“I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.”



And none of this that is attributed to Hitler is backed up by the Gospels. Neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostles call us to go against the Jews like Hitler did.

This bit here:

"civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."

That is not the message of Jesus Christ, so no, Hitler wasn't fighting for Jesus when he tried to destroy God's Chosen People.

[Lisa0315]

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.

“I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.”



And none of this that is attributed to Hitler is backed up by the Gospels. Neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostles call us to go against the Jews like Hitler did.

This bit here:

"civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."

That is not the message of Jesus Christ, so no, Hitler wasn't fighting for Jesus when he tried to destroy God's Chosen People.

You are missing the point, though. Obviously, Hitler was not a Christian from the perspective of whom Jesus would acknowledge as a follower. However, in the NAME of Christ, Hitler did evil. In the name of Christ, we had crusades, religious wars, slavery, and a lot more. In the name of Christ, abortion clinics have been bombed and gays have been murdered.

Whether or not these things align with the message of Christ does not matter. What matters is that REAL Christians have not come out in masses and condemned these things. What matters is that people are dying rather than members of the Catholic church telling the pope that he is wrong about condoms. It is more important to Catholics to have infallibility than to save the lives of those who are dying from AIDS in Africa.

Do you get it yet? Christianity is not what Christ intended, and what it has become is evil.

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

“My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice. And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the ancient world some two thousand years ago — a civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.

“I may not be a light of the church, a pulpiteer, but deep down I am a pious man, and believe that whoever fights bravely in defense of the natural laws framed by God and never capitulates will never be deserted by the Lawgiver, but will, in the end, receive the blessings of Providence.”



And none of this that is attributed to Hitler is backed up by the Gospels. Neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostles call us to go against the Jews like Hitler did.

This bit here:

"civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."

That is not the message of Jesus Christ, so no, Hitler wasn't fighting for Jesus when he tried to destroy God's Chosen People.

You are missing the point, though. Obviously, Hitler was not a Christian from the perspective of whom Jesus would acknowledge as a follower. However, in the NAME of Christ, Hitler did evil. In the name of Christ, we had crusades, religious wars, slavery, and a lot more. In the name of Christ, abortion clinics have been bombed and gays have been murdered.

Whether or not these things align with the message of Christ does not matter. What matters is that REAL Christians have not come out in masses and condemned these things. What matters is that people are dying rather than members of the Catholic church telling the pope that he is wrong about condoms. It is more important to Catholics to have infallibility than to save the lives of those who are dying from AIDS in Africa.

Do you get it yet? Christianity is not what Christ intended, and what it has become is evil.

Lisa


So you're saying that it doesn't matter if people believe Hitler was killing Jews (God's own people) in the name of Christ even though it goes against everything that Jesus Christ stood for and the Gospels don't back Hitler up in his actions.

You're not making a distinction and just calling Christianity itself evil. But when it comes to Communism, then you make a distinction between the evil perpetrated under an atheist regime and say "oh but it wasn't atheistic." Hello? You call it a fallacy when atheism is linked with communism, but not when christianity is linked with nazi fascism. You use double standards so it's you who's solidly missing the point. Do you get it yet?

[Matty]

And none of this that is attributed to Hitler is backed up by the Gospels. Neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostles call us to go against the Jews like Hitler did.

This bit here:

"civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."

That is not the message of Jesus Christ, so no, Hitler wasn't fighting for Jesus when he tried to destroy God's Chosen People.That is the very definition of a No True Scotsman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman) logical fallacy and what you seem to be ignoring is that it really doesnt matter.

The bible contains just as many if not more so examples of religiously inspired and Godly genocide, as it does "be nice" messages, what matters is if Hitler believed he was doing Gods will, not if you agree withe his interpretation. Judging by the quotes from him and contemporaries it would seem pretty evident he did think he was doing Gods work.

int he total absence of a definitive description of what it is to be the member of any sect of ay religion, how can it be otherwise? Its all open to interpretation, and yours and most others may differ from Hitlers, or Jerry Falwels, that bitch Mother Teresas or for all i know the Popes, but there is no right or wrong interpretation just a sliding scale of peopl who use religion to justify their own actions be they good or evil.

Basically who says your interpretation is the right one? (please dont cite the bible as a source of moral guidance or we will be here all night :) )


as for the other bit i already asked you for an example of any atrocity perpetrated specifically in the name of atheism. I take it you have none?

I can provide you withe 2000 years of atrocities perpetrated specifically in the name of Xtianity and the abrahamic God yet i know of NONE done so in the name of no god. Do you get it yet? People do not sacrifice them selves and others over lack of belief, only belief, as David says, in some form of ideology, of which religion is the most historically prevalent, can make people that mental. Religious ones even more so because the prize they offer in exchange for compliance is that much greater, ie privileged immortality.

[tjakey]

"Religion is a powerful force in the lives of some people. Unfortunately the "power" results in oppression, hate, and war."

That was me. Religion (Islam) specifically drives suicide bombings; the perpetrators believe they are doing "god's will" and will be rewarded in heaven. Religion (Christian / Islam) specifically teaches that women should be subservient to men and is directly responsible for the oppression of women. Religion (Christian / Islam again) is also directly responsible for the oppression of gay people. Christianity and Islam each specifically claim that they are the only avenue to approach god and that anyone who does not adhere each particular teaching and practice will be damned and tortured forever by the god, making the killing and torturing of "infidels" acceptable. A practice that Christians did for hundreds of years and Muslims still employ almost daily.

Attempt to defend religion all you like, but you may as well try to defend slavery, genocide, and animal sacrifice as acceptable, god endorsed social norms. (You guessed it, Christianity and Islam.

And the saddest thing of all? The god doesn't exist. Thousands of years of atrocities done in the name of a fairy tale.

This is not to claim that all religious people are evil. But here's the thing. Religious people who do not endorse evil do so by being the least religious. They must repudiate fundamental parts of their own holy books, ignore the teachings of some of their own religious leaders, and reject some of the ideology of their own sects. The deeper one delves into religion, the more fundamentalist one becomes, the more likely it is that one will embrace evil and atrocity as acceptable.

[Matty]

This is not to claim that all religious people are evil. But here's the thing. Religious people who do not endorse evil do so by being the least religious. They must repudiate fundamental parts of their own holy books, ignore the teachings of some of their own religious leaders, and reject some of the ideology of their own sects. The deeper one delves into religion, the more fundamentalist one becomes, the more likely it is that one will embrace evil and atrocity as acceptable.

Tjakey hits the bullseye right there. Nicely put.

[Lisa0315]

And none of this that is attributed to Hitler is backed up by the Gospels. Neither Jesus Christ nor the Apostles call us to go against the Jews like Hitler did.

This bit here:

"civilization which was driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people."

That is not the message of Jesus Christ, so no, Hitler wasn't fighting for Jesus when he tried to destroy God's Chosen People.

You are missing the point, though. Obviously, Hitler was not a Christian from the perspective of whom Jesus would acknowledge as a follower. However, in the NAME of Christ, Hitler did evil. In the name of Christ, we had crusades, religious wars, slavery, and a lot more. In the name of Christ, abortion clinics have been bombed and gays have been murdered.

Whether or not these things align with the message of Christ does not matter. What matters is that REAL Christians have not come out in masses and condemned these things. What matters is that people are dying rather than members of the Catholic church telling the pope that he is wrong about condoms. It is more important to Catholics to have infallibility than to save the lives of those who are dying from AIDS in Africa.

Do you get it yet? Christianity is not what Christ intended, and what it has become is evil.

Lisa


I don't believe that Hitler was fighting in the name of Christianity or Jesus Christ, I don't care what speech he made. Because the Christian message, the Gospel, is good. But you're saying that it doesn't matter if people believe Hitler was killing Jews (God's own people) in the name of Christ even though it goes against everything that Jesus Christ stood for and the Gospels don't back Hitler up in his actions.

You're not making a distinction and just calling Christianity itself evil. But when it comes to Communism, then you make a distinction between the evil perpetrated under an atheist regime and say "oh but it wasn't atheistic." Hello? You use double standards so it's you who's solidly missing the point. You call it a fallacy when atheism is linked with communism, but not when christianity is linked with nazi fascism. Do you get it yet?

It is not the same. Communism and Socialism are not religions, nor is atheism. Christians link communism and socialism with atheism, but they are not related at all. The rise of Communism in the Soviet Union, if anything, was a rebellion over the corrupt monarchy and church. It was not a rebellion against God, but starving people fighting the two institutions that had made their lives so harsh.

Honestly, this is simply not a conversation that one can have unless you have studied some history. Your posts do not seem very educated on the subject.

Hitler was not a Christian. Hitler did make a claim to Christianity. To an atheist, there simply is no difference.

Let me say it another way.

Person A claims to be a Christian
Person B claims to be a Christian
Person C is an atheist.

While A and B might be able to tell who is a Christian and who is not, C cannot tell the distinction.

In the Communist/Atheist scenario, though, you have...

Person A is a communist
Person B is an atheist

Person A could be a Christian and a communist. Person B could be an atheist and be a freedom fighter. The USSR had an atheist clause, but that does mean that all communists were atheists, nor that atheism was the driving force behind communism. It is a fallacy to think so.

Communism was a social experiment that failed. The church was scorned because the church was corrupt. Faith, real faith, did not die in Soviet Russia. In fact, some of the greatest acts of faith since the apostles took place over there.

The whole Western cold war against the ebil atheist commies was a lie which allowed politicians to strike fear into the hearts of voters.

Socialism, well, it has been around since the apostles. In fact, the early church was a socialist organization if you think about it.

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

This is not to claim that all religious people are evil. But here's the thing. Religious people who do not endorse evil do so by being the least religious. They must repudiate fundamental parts of their own holy books, ignore the teachings of some of their own religious leaders, and reject some of the ideology of their own sects. The deeper one delves into religion, the more fundamentalist one becomes, the more likely it is that one will embrace evil and atrocity as acceptable.


So you want Christians to whitewash the Bible and delete all the parts where God judges people for their evil? You only see God as acting evil in the OT, not that people were evil and got punished for their wrongdoing.

So we take out all the bits that people are squeamish about, and just leave a God who lets evil continue and will never act against it. Ok, I guess that will work for the atheists who ignore mans responsibility, and for the Christians who are embarrassed about what our God did in the OT and what He's going to do at the Final Judgement.

It's better for us to make people feel comfortable than it is to believe the whole truth about the Bible. IOW, cherry pick it to suit the world.

[Lisa0315]

This is not to claim that all religious people are evil. But here's the thing. Religious people who do not endorse evil do so by being the least religious. They must repudiate fundamental parts of their own holy books, ignore the teachings of some of their own religious leaders, and reject some of the ideology of their own sects. The deeper one delves into religion, the more fundamentalist one becomes, the more likely it is that one will embrace evil and atrocity as acceptable.


So you want Christians to whitewash the Bible and delete all the parts where God judges people for their evil? You only see God as acting evil in the OT, not that people were evil and got punished for their wrongdoing.

So we take out all the bits that people are squeamish about, and just leave a God who lets evil continue and will never act against it. Ok, I guess that will work for the atheists who ignore mans responsibility, and for the Christians who are embarrassed about what our God did in the OT and what He's going to do at the Final Judgement.

It's better for us to make people feel comfortable than it is to believe the whole truth about the Bible. IOW, cherry pick it to suit the world.

Who are these embarrassed Christians and why are they embarrassed?

Oh, you mean because God ordered the deaths of infants? What exactly was it that those babies did?

I am waiting to see if you give the pat Christian answer or not. Please explain this one without it if you can.

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

This is not to claim that all religious people are evil. But here's the thing. Religious people who do not endorse evil do so by being the least religious. They must repudiate fundamental parts of their own holy books, ignore the teachings of some of their own religious leaders, and reject some of the ideology of their own sects. The deeper one delves into religion, the more fundamentalist one becomes, the more likely it is that one will embrace evil and atrocity as acceptable.


So you want Christians to whitewash the Bible and delete all the parts where God judges people for their evil? You only see God as acting evil in the OT, not that people were evil and got punished for their wrongdoing.

So we take out all the bits that people are squeamish about, and just leave a God who lets evil continue and will never act against it. Ok, I guess that will work for the atheists who ignore mans responsibility, and for the Christians who are embarrassed about what our God did in the OT and what He's going to do at the Final Judgement.

It's better for us to make people feel comfortable than it is to believe the whole truth about the Bible. IOW, cherry pick it to suit the world.

Who are these embarrassed Christians and why are they embarrassed?

Oh, you mean because God ordered the deaths of infants? What exactly was it that those babies did?

I am waiting to see if you give the pat Christian answer or not. Please explain this one without it if you can.

Lisa



There are MANY Christians who are embarrassed about the actions in the OT. The genocide against the Canaanites, the humbling of Pharoah, so on and so forth.

You tell me why they're embarrassed?

[David B]

So you're saying that it doesn't matter if people believe Hitler was killing Jews (God's own people) in the name of Christ even though it goes against everything that Jesus Christ stood for and the Gospels don't back Hitler up in his actions.

Hmm. Who do you think wrote this

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly_and I myself was unaware of it_will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

And are you going to repudiate him and his followers?

David

[Lisa0315]

So you're saying that it doesn't matter if people believe Hitler was killing Jews (God's own people) in the name of Christ even though it goes against everything that Jesus Christ stood for and the Gospels don't back Hitler up in his actions.

Hmm. Who do you think wrote this

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly_and I myself was unaware of it_will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

And are you going to repudiate him and his followers?

David

Baby, you are misquoting me. I didn't say that. SallyAnne did.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

So you want Christians to whitewash the Bible and delete all the parts where God judges people for their evil? You only see God as acting evil in the OT, not that people were evil and got punished for their wrongdoing.

So we take out all the bits that people are squeamish about, and just leave a God who lets evil continue and will never act against it. Ok, I guess that will work for the atheists who ignore mans responsibility, and for the Christians who are embarrassed about what our God did in the OT and what He's going to do at the Final Judgement.

It's better for us to make people feel comfortable than it is to believe the whole truth about the Bible. IOW, cherry pick it to suit the world.

Who are these embarrassed Christians and why are they embarrassed?

Oh, you mean because God ordered the deaths of infants? What exactly was it that those babies did?

I am waiting to see if you give the pat Christian answer or not. Please explain this one without it if you can.

Lisa



There are MANY Christians who are embarrassed about the actions in the OT. The genocide against the Canaanites, the humbling of Pharoah, so on and so forth.

You tell me why they're embarrassed?

I asked you first. Please respect me enough to not answer my question by throwing it back on me.

Lisa

[SallyAnne]

Honestly, this is simply not a conversation that one can have unless you have studied some history. Your posts do not seem very educated on the subject.




Maybe they're not, but I do have a degree in History so I have studied a LOT of history. That doesn't mean I'm an expert on all of it.

[Matty]

So you want Christians to whitewash the Bible and delete all the parts where God judges people for their evil?

what was Lots wifes big crime again? Oh yeah, the bitch looked over her shoulder. A capital sin by all accounts.
Yet her hubbie who gave up his daughter to be gang raped by the whole town, and then once she had been banged to death, dismembered her body and buried it at he four corners of the city , was a good guy? PLease tell me the intended morality in that wee snippet. Please and thanks, cos it totally escapes me. "Do as i say or i will fuck you up" is about as close as Gods moral message gets to that isnt it?

How about the babes to be ripped from the wombs of their mothers and infants thrown onto the rocks to die. What was their evil for which they were so severely punished again? Being born to the wrong tribe? See how those examples are much more akin to Hitlers stance than yours? Now why was he wrong for taking those bits more literally than the huggy bits? On what bais d you make that distinction when by the words of almost every Xtian out there, the whole lot is holy law and not to be questioned.

Honestly. you are on a road to nowhere trying to claim the bible as a source of moral teaching. It only is if you ignore vast parts of it. And on which basis do you know which bits to exemplify or ignore? Your own innate biological morality.

So we take out all the bits that people are squeamish about, Holy shit no. Leave it in its abhorant and hypocritical entirity. The one thing that can be said i nthe favour of the bible is that reading it front to back has probably caused more deconverts than converts.

and just leave a God who lets evil continue and will never act against it. I dont see much current or historical activity from him in terms of stamping out evil, do you?

Ok, I guess that will work for the atheists who ignore mans responsibility,
Exactly the wrong way round. At least athiests dont claim God told them to do it, eh? Who is more aware of humankinds innate capacity for good and evil, someone who thinks there is an all powerful chessmater in the sky controlling everything, or the humanist?

It's better for us to make people feel comfortable than it is to believe the whole truth about the Bible. IOW, cherry pick it to suit the world.was that for real or sarcastic? Becasue if it was real it is intellectually and morally dishonest and if it was sarcastic, you miss the fact that that is exactly what preachers priests chaplains and sunday school teachers do every Sunday.

[SallyAnne]

Who are these embarrassed Christians and why are they embarrassed?

Oh, you mean because God ordered the deaths of infants? What exactly was it that those babies did?

I am waiting to see if you give the pat Christian answer or not. Please explain this one without it if you can.

Lisa



There are MANY Christians who are embarrassed about the actions in the OT. The genocide against the Canaanites, the humbling of Pharoah, so on and so forth.

You tell me why they're embarrassed?

I asked you first. Please respect me enough to not answer my question by throwing it back on me.

Lisa



Sorry, but I want you to explain to me WHY Christians are embarrassed about it without the pat atheist answers if you can. Because all I seem to hear about the Christians who are embarrassed is their agreement with atheists rather than their own reasons.

[David B]

So you're saying that it doesn't matter if people believe Hitler was killing Jews (God's own people) in the name of Christ even though it goes against everything that Jesus Christ stood for and the Gospels don't back Hitler up in his actions.

Hmm. Who do you think wrote this

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly_and I myself was unaware of it_will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

And are you going to repudiate him and his followers?

David

Baby, you are misquoting me. I didn't say that. SallyAnne did.

Lisa

Sorry - my bad. Changed it.

David

[SallyAnne]

So you're saying that it doesn't matter if people believe Hitler was killing Jews (God's own people) in the name of Christ even though it goes against everything that Jesus Christ stood for and the Gospels don't back Hitler up in his actions.

Hmm. Who do you think wrote this

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly_and I myself was unaware of it_will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

And are you going to repudiate him and his followers?

David

Baby, you are misquoting me. I didn't say that. SallyAnne did.

Lisa


Said what?

[SallyAnne]

Exactly the wrong way round. At least athiests dont claim God told them to do it, eh? Who is more aware of humankinds innate capacity for good and evil, someone who thinks there is an all powerful chessmater in the sky controlling everything, or the humanist?



Certainly not the humanist. That's like the left hand telling the right hand to behave. The problem is human and goes right back to the disobedience in the Garden of Eden.

[David B]

Exactly the wrong way round. At least athiests dont claim God told them to do it, eh? Who is more aware of humankinds innate capacity for good and evil, someone who thinks there is an all powerful chessmater in the sky controlling everything, or the humanist?



Certainly not the humanist. That's like the left hand telling the right hand to behave. The problem is human and goes right back to the disobedience in the Garden of Eden.

I really hope you don't mean that you think there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal garden.

David

[SallyAnne]

Exactly the wrong way round. At least athiests dont claim God told them to do it, eh? Who is more aware of humankinds innate capacity for good and evil, someone who thinks there is an all powerful chessmater in the sky controlling everything, or the humanist?



Certainly not the humanist. That's like the left hand telling the right hand to behave. The problem is human and goes right back to the disobedience in the Garden of Eden.

I really hope you don't mean that you think there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal garden.

David



Yeah I do believe there was a real man called Adam and a real woman called Eve, yeah.

[David B]

Certainly not the humanist. That's like the left hand telling the right hand to behave. The problem is human and goes right back to the disobedience in the Garden of Eden.

I really hope you don't mean that you think there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal garden.

David



Yeah I do believe there was a real man called Adam and a real woman called Eve, yeah.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

David

[Matty]

oh ffs, and the world is 6000 yrs old?

[SallyAnne]

oh ffs, and the world is 6000 yrs old?

I've never said that the world is 6000 years old, I haven't got a clue how old it is.

[Matty]

okay my bad. here was me thinking you were a biblical literalist with adam and eve comment. the bible says it is a little more 6000yrs old.

i take it then that you dont "believe" in evolution? Do you believe that human females suffer pain in childbirth as payment for eves sin of eating an apple, or because of the change in hip structure to accommodate the weight bearing aspects of bipedality?


how about the flood?

and i'd still like an example of specifically atheist atrocities if you have time.
Or a retraction of course, either is cool. thank you.

[SallyAnne]

the bible says it is a little more 6000yrs old.



Where?

[SallyAnne]

i take it then that you dont "believe" in evolution?


I believe that God created man, Adam the first man.

[SallyAnne]

I really hope you don't mean that you think there was a literal Adam and Eve in a literal garden.

David



Yeah I do believe there was a real man called Adam and a real woman called Eve, yeah.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

David



God didn't create Eve?

[Matty]

the bible says it is a little more 6000yrs old.



Where?

isnt the commonly accepted theological calculation, all the begets from jesus back to adam?
I argee thats a bullshit way to do anything, but thats what your brethren claim.

God didn't create Eve?
as david says, all the evidence is against it. in fact the God the make and the Eve

please feel free to list any evidence we are overlooking.

and whilst you are at it, those examples of atheist atrocities. thanks.

[SallyAnne]

the bible says it is a little more 6000yrs old.



Where?

isnt the commonly accepted theological calculation, all the begets from jesus back to adam?



You said the Bible said so. It doesn't. It's an argument made by those who are arguing against evolution, not stated in the Bible like you tried to claim.

[Matty]

well fair enough. like i said i think its a downright silly thing anyway.

now back to how you know your interpretation of the Gospel is the right one as opposed to Kent Hovinds, Hitlers or Cardinal Richelieus.

[SallyAnne]

[as david says, all the evidence is against it.


Oh, so your evidence shows that there is no God creating either Adam, Eve, or anything else?

[SallyAnne]

now back to how you know your interpretation of the Gospel is the right one as opposed to Hitlers.


I dunno, Jesus didn't go around ordering us to kill Jews? Jesus didn't kill any Jews? That sort of thing maybe? You know, the example of Jesus Christ Himself and He wasn't a murderer. I didn't think Jesus advocated a Social Darwinism ideology either that Hitler seemed to subscribe to.

[SallyAnne]

as opposed to Kent Hovinds, Cardinal Richelieus.


Never heard of them....haven't got a clue what their interpretation is.

[Matty]

well Kent is just another pocket lining wanker creationist with the belief that taxes didnt apply to him as he answered to a higher power and who's "museum" shows peopl and dinosaurs coexisting happily (they were all veggies before the fall y'see, even T Rex)

And cardinal Richelius (if i'm thinking of the correct name ) was the main guy behind the biblically aproved witch trials across europe.

ETA my bad, i'm mixing up my nasty clerics, he was the french revolution guy, not nice but not who i was thinking of.
The ones i am thinking of were Popes John XXII and Innocent VIII

[as david says, all the evidence is against it.


Oh, so your evidence shows that there is no God creating either Adam, Eve, or anything else?

yup. it points to an evolutionary process whereby all living things evolved from other forms via the process of natural selection of millions of years and where humans evolved from ape like ancestors such as homo erectus.

the only "evidence" FOR any work of God, is the bible, and that is contradicted by a ton of other theories of creation. (Norse, Hindu, FSM, IPU, the list goes on) all of which have equally evidentiary support (just themselves and with no external corroboration at al) .

Not all of them can be right, they can (and as far as the evidence so far shows ARE) wrong. Like all scientists I'm open to changing my opinion this were evidence to be found that showed otherwise, but there IS NO conflicting evidence. The bible is it for evidence. doesnt that concern you or is that where faith comes in?

Where do you stand on dinosaurs? (between the plates or spikes and away from the teeth, is the obvious flippant answer i guess? :))
Existed or not? Fossils are a godly distraction confuse the overly curious, adam rode on one in the garden of eden? Wiped out by a comet climatic change or the Flood?


as for specific biblical Jesus examples and teachings as opposed to human interpretations of biblical stories, does that mean that if it came to it, you would give up your entire family for your faith?

And how come you get to ignore the old testament. Isnt ALL of the bible true? Even the nasty jealous and vengeful god bits?

[SallyAnne]

. The bible is it for evidence. doesnt that concern you or is that where faith comes in?



Faith comes from God.

[SallyAnne]

And how come you get to ignore the old testament.

I don't ignore the OT.

Isnt ALL of the bible true? Even the nasty jealous and vengeful god bits?

Why don't you ask a Christian who ignores the OT.

[Matty]

So why are you claiming those who follow the old testament examples in Godly justifed genocide, rape and torture, as "No True Xtians" .

Why wouldnt they have just as much right to turn around and say you are ignoring the real bits, and concentrating on the nice parable bits, and consequently YOU are not literal enough to call yourself a Xtian. Whos right?

Gays? Good, bad, none of your mine or anyone elses business? They are biblically condemned arent they? As were witches, but no doubt the witch trials werent really Xtian?

You also missed that bit about Lots wife really not being evil enough to cop the death penalty, whilst "one true and good man" Lot sacrificed his daughter to be mob raped to death followed by hacked apart by daddy himself which was totally awesome in Gods sight. I believe it was in the context of you stating that nasty OT god "only ever smited/smote/smit the evil", certainly not ordering his men to kill babies, rip the babies from the wombs of pregnant women, kill all men boys and livestock mercilessly, (is mercilessly a Xtian word, i thought it was supposed to be the opposite?) and hand out captured virgins to the soldiers to be used and disposed of as they saw fit.

Oh and some examples of atrocities carried out in the name of atheism please. Thanks. I know i've piled it on a bit but I'm patient. Take your time.


Faith comes from God.If you say so, but thats ot what i asked. I asked how come it doesnt bother you that there is NO evidence for any of the major biblical events outside of the bible. Creation, Eden, Fall, Flood, Exodus, Red Sea parting, Magi treks, Virgin Births, Jesus et al, Zombification followed by ascent to heaven, Heaven, God. Any of it.

It would concern me but then i am afflicted withe a need for some sort of objective evidence. i"m aware that isnt a "disease" to which the religious mind is all that susceptible, but still most of that lot is so far fetched that it must cause SOME cognitive dissonance no?

[SallyAnne]

So why are you claiming those who follow the old testament examples in Godly justifed genocide, rape and torture, as "No True Xtians" .



Because Christians don't live under the Old Covenant, they live under the New Covenant through the blood of Jesus Christ. That doesn't mean that I ignore the OT.

[SallyAnne]

Why wouldnt they have just as much right to turn around and say you are ignoring the real bits, and concentrating on the nice parable bits, and consequently YOU are not literal enough to call yourself a Xtian. Whos right?


Jesus is right. And He instituted the New Covenant, God's Grace, which applies to all Christians. So Christians don't live under the Old Covenant and can't use ancient historical acts found in the OT as justification for their own political ends.

[SallyAnne]

Oh and some examples of atrocities carried out in the name of atheism please. Thanks. I know i've piled it on a bit but I'm patient. Take your time.


I will thanks.

[SallyAnne]

If you say so, but thats ot what i asked. I asked how come it doesnt bother you that there is NO evidence for any of the major biblical events outside of the bible. Creation, Eden, Fall, Flood, Exodus, Red Sea parting, Magi treks, Virgin Births, Jesus et al, Zombification followed by ascent to heaven, Heaven, God. Any of it.

It would concern me but then i am afflicted withe a need for some sort of objective evidence. i"m aware that isnt a "disease" to which the religious mind is all that susceptible, but still most of that lot is so far fetched that it must cause SOME cognitive dissonance no?


Not really, no. You trust only what you can see (even though you never witnessed the big bang but still believe it).

But faith in God is the conviction of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

[SallyAnne]

You also missed that bit about Lots wife really not being evil enough to cop the death penalty, whilst "one true and good man" Lot sacrificed his daughter to be mob raped to death followed by hacked apart by daddy himself which was totally awesome in Gods sight. I believe it was in the context of you stating that nasty OT god "only ever smited/smote/smit the evil", certainly not ordering his men to kill babies, rip the babies from the wombs of pregnant women, kill all men boys and livestock mercilessly, (is mercilessly a Xtian word, i thought it was supposed to be the opposite?) and hand out captured virgins to the soldiers to be used and disposed of as they saw fit.




Do ever you argue the OT with orthodox Jews? Or do you only ever hold Christians responsible for the OT and confuse it with the New Covenant like you're doing now?

[Jobar]

SallyAnne, it's been quite a while, but I've argued these subjects with Jewish believers on II. It's true that usually we don't have many Jews coming to boards like these, but it does happen occasionally.

[VoxRat]

...
Not really, no. You trust only what you can see (even though you never witnessed the big bang but still believe it). I don't know anything about "The Big Bang", beyond what I read from people like Stephen Hawking. Do I "believe" it? I don't know. I think Hawking et al. probably have a much more informed clue than, say, Saul of Tarsus.

What I do know is biology and genetics. And I can tell you FOR A FACT that the biblical account of biological origins is pure mythology.

[Matty]

If you say so, but thats ot what i asked. I asked how come it doesnt bother you that there is NO evidence for any of the major biblical events outside of the bible. Creation, Eden, Fall, Flood, Exodus, Red Sea parting, Magi treks, Virgin Births, Jesus et al, Zombification followed by ascent to heaven, Heaven, God. Any of it.

It would concern me but then i am afflicted withe a need for some sort of objective evidence. i"m aware that isnt a "disease" to which the religious mind is all that susceptible, but still most of that lot is so far fetched that it must cause SOME cognitive dissonance no?


Not really, no. You trust only what you can see (even though you never witnessed the big bang but still believe it).

But faith in God is the conviction of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Dont confuse "evidence for" with "seen with your own eyes".

The evidence for the big bang is really quite simple. The universe is currently expanding,that has been confirmed by all manner of telescopes monitoring how far apart from each other galaxies are, lots of them, they are all uniformly moving away from each other a ta comparable accelerating rate . Now if the universe is expanding, it stands to logical reason that at some point everything that is that much further apart now, was that much closer together previously, in fact it stands to logical reason that at some point the whole universe was contained in one point. we dont know what happened before or what casued it, there was no "before" as far as current modern science can ascertain, but the point at which all that matter began to expand is (in a misnomer kind of way) named the Big Bang.

D'you see the difference. Cause and effect as well as predictability in a physical sense can constiute solid evidence, you dont have to be there.
Now you either think that all those observers of the universal expansion are wrong, or lying in order to not believe in the Big Bang. Either that or you throw away or ignore evidence in place of fiath that whoever wrote your holy book was telling the true word of God.

I'm sure a physicist can fill you in further if you prefer. My area is biology and as vox says, the biblical account is pure myth written when we had no idea of heritability genetis or biology as a whole. Yet despite 2000 year of progrees that would be so miraculous to those who wrote the Bible that modern lif would seem magical and godly you people still opt for the age old myth, with nothing to back it up.

I understand that Goddidit is easier than science, really i do, but you trust science everyday of your life presumably (unless you are one of those who eschew medical treatment in lieu of prayer and live in a cave somewhere, presumably not.) Yet you trust the stuff that is convenient for you, and ignore the stuff that is just as solidly based (more so in the case of evolution and the big bang) but disgrees with your story book.

D'you believe in gravity? Serious question., Is the Theory Of Gravity true as far as you know? Do you trust the observations that state it is or modern technology based on that "theory" ? Becasue those are the very same observations that give us the Big Bang theory. Same thing, evolution is as much an proven underpinning of everything (inc aspects of the medicine you must take from time to time) as gravity is when you take a plane flight yet you trust one and not the other. So you DO trust scientific observations in some cases but not others. How do you decide?

Do ever you argue the OT with orthodox Jews? Or do you only ever hold Christians responsible for the OT and confuse it with the New Covenant like you're doing now?Honestly, its like arguing if The Chambers of Secrets is a truer book and better source of morality than the Prisoner of Azkabahn as far as i am concerned. Its all bollocks.

So let me get this right, you dont follow any of the teachings or moral examples of the old testament, because why? That was all of a sudden made not true? God had it wrong? Is the OT fables and stories and the new real? What? Is this infallible word of god all of a sudden open to revision if you dont like the icky bits? I dont get it. Its either a totally true infallible notation of the word of god, or it is a story book. Not some bits are Gospel, but not others.

Anyway presumably if you go strictly by the things jeus tacitly approved of in the NT you have no issues withe slavery or beating servants?

and WOULD you trade your entire family for your belief in Jesus? He was quite explicit about that wasnt he. Parents spouses and kids matter not a jot compared to him and all that no?

And a final Q for one night. How come if Jesus was so good, he cured one blind bloke as opposed to simply abolishing blindness withe a click of his fingers, what did the other blind people do to deserve being ignored? Or was he a bit of a David Blaine and only pulled his tricks when there was an appreciative audience? Sounds a bit sinfully proud to me. If god/jesus etc are so real and good AND powerful, why is there suffering and evil at all? You know it is impossible for you God to be all seeing. All knowing, and all powerful as long as there is evil or suffering in the world right? Impossible.

[tjakey]

And Sally Anne pretty much proves my points for me.

Anyway, since it seems likely that she is going to hijack this thread as well with more of her tripe about creationism and the bible, I suspect this one is about done.

Which also pretty much proves my earlier point about ranting and inundating. Christians, they are nothing if not pathetically predictable.

[His Noodly Appendage]

The thing I always wonder about is why, if Jesus was God with all his Neat Stuff, he didn't so much as pass on a few tips like a broad outline of the germ theory of disease.

It would have been trivially easy to put it in terms that his audience could have comprehended. They knew about seeds, even ones too small to see; that's what they thought semen was. They had the concept of breeding vermin. Combining the two would have saved billions of lives over the years, and vastly reduced human misery along the way.

Even without an explanation, just a few simple pronouncements would have helped beyond imagining.

"Where there is disease, boil your drinking water, avoid the bodily fluids of others or any vermin they may carry, and quarantine the sick. At all times, keep shit away from the water supply, ensure that wounds are washed with boiled water and kept protected with clean bandages. Boil anything that will touch wounds or go inside orifices, immediately beforehand."

But noooooo.....

[SallyAnne]

Which also pretty much proves my earlier point about ranting and inundating. Christians, they are nothing if not pathetically predictable.

Blimey, that's exactly how I feel about atheists, especially the ex-Christian
variety with an axe to grind. ALL of your arguments come straight out of the free thinking and secular movements of Victorian England, you don't have any new arguments because they're all plagiarised from that era. It's all rehashed "Age of Reason" Thomas Paine, militant atheist Charles Bradlaugh, and secularist George Holyoake clap trap. I've heard them all before and all of them were used to separate state and church, that's where they originate. You're repeating what they said a couple hundred years ago. I'll be stunned if any of you ever comes up with anything different, a new argument.

And I haven't ranted or inundated. I'm the only one here with the rest of you ranting at me. Carry on.

[Jobar]

[clears throat loudly]

Tjakey, that last post was uncalled for. Far from hijacking this thread, SallyAnne's participation in it has made it far more interesting for us all. You disagree with her stance; fine, so do I. But attacking her personally does nothing to convince her she's mistaken- rather the opposite. And you don't need to convince the rest of us of that.

[SallyAnne]

There are Christians who seem to rub their hands gleefully at the idea of some folks going to hell as if that will win the argument once and for all. I have moments when I am gleeful about the idea that some of those same folks are going to get the ole "I Never Knew Ya!"




I don't feel gleeful about any of it, not about hell, and not about Jesus saying to anyone "I never knew you." I'm sorry you've come across Christians who are and now you feel the same about them. Personally, none of it fills me with glee at all.

[SallyAnne]

Honestly, SallyAnne, I am not too happy with religion in general, and even to the point that I question the benevolence of our God. I just wish that I understood His purpose in allowing people to do such evil in His name. Preachers go around saying that God is striking this nation down or that person down or that group down for sin. I ask why isn't God striking down the false teachers out there, the ones who by their perverse doctrines are causing so much unbelief. The answer is the same, age of grace, I know, but still.

I understand your disillusionment Lisa. I've never been happy with the state of religion either and I come from an atheist background and always viewed it with high suspicion. I believed all the "religion causes all the evil" and I saw bad things being done in the name of religion so the last thing I wanted to become was a Christian. I really do think I have carried my negative feeling about organised religion over into my Christian life and that's why I've never gone to church, I still don't feel comfortable around the whole "religious" thang.

Also, I came into contact with a false teacher (who came from organised religion) early on and that put me off forever. Not only that, but I despaired at why God allowed it, but it's not His fault, the Bible warns about false teachers, false brethren, and false prophets. But still, when you actually come into contact with one personally it really hurts and I did question my salvation and felt like God abandoned me. I felt that I could easily have fallen into unbelief and thought I had dreamed it all, but in reality, my faith was tested. Of course He didn't abandone me otherwise I would have carried on being deceived by the so-called "friend," so He actually saved me from going down the wrong path. So yeah, I understand that nothing is as it should be in religion, that's why it's a hard road, Jesus never said it was going to be easy for us.

A decade later and I'm not so unbending towards certain aspects of religion because there are many good people and I can't keep judging everyone by that one bad example I had or the negative suspicion I carried over from my atheist days. I've gotten over myself about it because for years I had a real chip on my shoulder about religion and was very "anti" about it.


Hell, I might be one of those, I don't know. Maybe, I am as deceived as some believe. Maybe, I am backslid, lost my salvation, going to hell, etc., but I will just be damned if I am going to hate people, groups, or tell other people how to live their lives. Just not my style. Never was, although, I sure as hell gave it a good try.

Lisa


That's good because you're not supposed to "hate" anyway. So I'd say you're not deceived, backslid, nor lost your salvation. You just sound a little disillusioned and wearied to me, that's understandable, it's not easy sweetheart....

[Jobar]

Sally, have you heard or read anything about Hitler's writings concerning the Bible before the beginning of his political career? (http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerBible.htm) From that link-

This article presents the actual note page from which Hitler uses the Bible as the monumental history of mankind for which we can give thanks to Werner Maser for bringing it first to publication in his book, "Hitler's Letters and Notes."

Hitler wrote these private notes while in his 30s and they predate his political career. Although Hitler wrote his first political antisemitic letter to Adolf Gemlich on September 16, 1919, these notes show the Biblical influence on the young Hitler in regards to his views on race laws at around the same time. Hitler's 1919 letter without his notes to provide context has led many scholars to incorrectly conclude that Hitler's antisemitism started from a purely secular mind-set. The Biblical references, especially in regards to the race laws mentioned in these notes, clearly shows that Hitler had a religious reason for his Jewish hatred and his views on race laws which later turned into the Nuremberg laws.

Many have attempted to dismiss Hitler's speeches or public announcements where he mentions religion, as a ploy to gain political support. But this hypothesis never gets met with evidence, and they leave us only with their opinions and beliefs. Hitler's private notes tell us otherwise because they agree with his later public pronouncements and give them an authentic mirror to his thoughts presented in his private notes.

Of course Hitler wrote many other notes and letters, but this particular outline based on the Bible represents, perhaps, the most revealing of his private thoughts in regards to his religious beliefs at a time before he came into power.

Whatever you think of his interpretation of his faith, there's not much room to doubt that Hitler saw himself as a Christian.

[Lanakila]

There are Christians who seem to rub their hands gleefully at the idea of some folks going to hell as if that will win the argument once and for all. I have moments when I am gleeful about the idea that some of those same folks are going to get the ole "I Never Knew Ya!"




I don't feel gleeful about any of it, not about hell, and not about Jesus saying to anyone "I never knew you." I'm sorry you've come across Christians who are and now you feel the same about them. Personally, none of it fills me with glee at all.

It didn't feel me with glee either. The relief when I realized it was all bullshit and that people do not go to hell and that I no longer had to have cognitive dissonance to keep believing in a supposed loving God that not only created hell, but sent people there for no other reason then they don't believe

[SallyAnne]

Sally, have you heard or read anything about Hitler's writings concerning the Bible before the beginning of his political career? (http://www.nobeliefs.com/HitlerBible.htm) From that link-

This article presents the actual note page from which Hitler uses the Bible as the monumental history of mankind for which we can give thanks to Werner Maser for bringing it first to publication in his book, "Hitler's Letters and Notes."

Hitler wrote these private notes while in his 30s and they predate his political career. Although Hitler wrote his first political antisemitic letter to Adolf Gemlich on September 16, 1919, these notes show the Biblical influence on the young Hitler in regards to his views on race laws at around the same time. Hitler's 1919 letter without his notes to provide context has led many scholars to incorrectly conclude that Hitler's antisemitism started from a purely secular mind-set. The Biblical references, especially in regards to the race laws mentioned in these notes, clearly shows that Hitler had a religious reason for his Jewish hatred and his views on race laws which later turned into the Nuremberg laws.

Many have attempted to dismiss Hitler's speeches or public announcements where he mentions religion, as a ploy to gain political support. But this hypothesis never gets met with evidence, and they leave us only with their opinions and beliefs. Hitler's private notes tell us otherwise because they agree with his later public pronouncements and give them an authentic mirror to his thoughts presented in his private notes.

Of course Hitler wrote many other notes and letters, but this particular outline based on the Bible represents, perhaps, the most revealing of his private thoughts in regards to his religious beliefs at a time before he came into power.

Whatever you think of his interpretation of his faith, there's not much room to doubt that Hitler saw himself as a Christian.


Well, I don't care that Hitler saw himself as a Christian, the father of Aryans and the next world conquerer, same as I don't care that Phelps sees himself as a Christian. They're both anathema to me, both on some bizarre egomaniacal power trip that doesn't represent the love and grace of our Lord and Saviour. I don't see anything of Jesus Christ in their actions and He said "by their fruits you will know them." What are their fruits? Hitler murdered God's own chosen people the Jews who are the apple of His eye, and Phelps "hates" any and everyone, both murderers, one a mass murderer and the other displaying his heart through his lying false tongue. They use religion as a tool for their own hatred and murder, that doesn't mean I am obliged to accept them as brothers just because they use the word "Christian," not at all, in fact, it means the exact opposite and that I am to discern that they are false, just as the Bible instructs. Anathema, end of story.

[SallyAnne]

Whatever you think of his interpretation of his faith, there's not much room to doubt that Hitler saw himself as a Christian.

He also saw himself as the father of a Master Race and believed he was going to conquer the world with a glorious Thousand Year Reich. So much for that.....

[DMB]

(SallyAnne, I'm a little surprised that someone European with a history degree has never heard of Cardinal Richelieu.)

The important thing about Hitler's anti-Semitism is that it didn't spring fully formed from his own brain. It is also significant that his anti-Semitic ideas so rapidly found such fertile ground among his own people and in the countries the Nazis overran.

Why do you think that was so? I know what I think. I suggest you read this Wiki article: History of antisemitism. Christians didn't invent anti-Semitism, but by painting the Jews as "Christ-killers" and persecuting them for hundreds of years, they prepared the ground for Hitler.

[David B]

Which brings us back to the unattributed quote I posted yesterday.

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly_and I myself was unaware of it_will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

David

[SallyAnne]

(SallyAnne, I'm a little surprised that someone European with a history degree has never heard of Cardinal Richelieu.)



Maybe I did, I just can't remember, there's so many names to keep track of, you can't remember them all.

[SallyAnne]

Why do you think that was so? I know what I think. I suggest you read this Wiki article: History of antisemitism. Christians didn't invent anti-Semitism, but by painting the Jews as "Christ-killers" and persecuting them for hundreds of years, they prepared the ground for Hitler.


I know yeah, lets just say that I don't agree with them and am not anti-semite myself.

[SallyAnne]

Which brings us back to the unattributed quote I posted yesterday.

What shall we Christians do with this rejected and condemned people, the Jews? Since they live among us, we dare not tolerate their conduct, now that we are aware of their lying and reviling and blaspheming. If we do, we become sharers in their lies, cursing and blasphemy. Thus we cannot extinguish the unquenchable fire of divine wrath, of which the prophets speak, nor can we convert the Jews. With prayer and the fear of God we must practice a sharp mercy to see whether we might save at least a few from the glowing flames. We dare not avenge ourselves. Vengeance a thousand times worse than we could wish them already has them by the throat. I shall give you my sincere advice:

First, to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. This is to be done in honor of our Lord and of Christendom, so that God might see that we are Christians, and do not condone or knowingly tolerate such public lying, cursing, and blaspheming of his Son and of his Christians. For whatever we tolerated in the past unknowingly_and I myself was unaware of it_will be pardoned by God. But if we, now that we are informed, were to protect and shield such a house for the Jews, existing right before our very nose, in which they lie about, blaspheme, curse, vilify, and defame Christ and us (as was heard above), it would be the same as if we were doing all this and even worse ourselves, as we very well know.

David


Right, and I think that his "advice" is in direct conflict with Romans 11. Which puts me out in the cold with many Christians who think I am out of order for speaking against Martin Luther. Hard luck. That rant is horrendous and I don't agree with him.

Martin Luther was obviously not well aquainted with Romans 11.

[DMB]

SallyAnne, I've no doubt that you can dismiss Christian thinkers of the past for all sorts of reasons. It is harder, however, to say that they were not True ChistiansTM because they happened not to agree with you. The point we have been arguing is over Nazism and its Christian (both Catholic and Protestant) roots.

[SallyAnne]

SallyAnne, I've no doubt that you can dismiss Christian thinkers of the past for all sorts of reasons. It is harder, however, to say that they were not True ChistiansTM because they happened not to agree with you. The point we have been arguing is over Nazism and its Christian (both Catholic and Protestant) roots.


Social Darwinism and Eugenics is as much part of Nazism as any religion.

[SallyAnne]

It is harder, however, to say that they were not True ChistiansTM because they happened not to agree with you.


Um, it's pretty clear to see that Hitler wasn't doing anything for Jesus Christ. Unless you think Jesus wanted to wipe out his own people even though the OT prophesied that God would bring them back to the Land...Hitler being intent on destroying them isn't exactly in line with the teachings of Christ or Romans 11, so yes, I feel confident to conclude that his actions were anti-christ, not representative of Christ.

[DMB]

SallyAnne, you don't get to determine who is or is not a Christian and you don't know how/why Luther reached the interpretations he did.

[SallyAnne]

(SallyAnne, I'm a little surprised that someone European.)



I'm half kiwi.

[SallyAnne]

SallyAnne, you don't get to determine who is or is not a Christian and you don't know how/why Luther reached the interpretations he did.

But I do get to determine who I agree with or not. And I don't agree with Luther's interpretation on hatred against the Jews because it's just not there in the Bible that Christians should hate the Jews. In fact, Romans 11 says that the Jews are the natural branches and we are wild branches grafted in and that we should not disdain the natural branches otherwise God will cut us off for our conceit. So anyone who teaches the opposite of that, as Luther advised in the worst way possible and Hitler demonstrated in the most evil way possible, is in serious breach of Paul's teaching in Romans 11.

[lpetrich]

SallyAnne, I suggest you reread Matthew 27:25 again.
All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" (NIV)

And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!" (NASB)

Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. (KJV)
In other words, they are accepting collective guilt, which is remarkably unusual for a lynch mob.

And we are told in the previous verses and chapters that the Jewish leaders found him guilty of blasphemy and that the citizens of Jerusalem turned from giving him a hero's welcome to wanting him dead. And also that they pushed Pontius Pilate into sentencing him.

So that's where Jews as Christ-killers came from.

But according to "Greater Good" theodicy, they did humanity an enormous service, because otherwise, Jesus Christ would never have suffered substitute punishment for our sins.

[SallyAnne]

SallyAnne, I suggest you reread Matthew 27:25 again.
All the people answered, "Let his blood be on us and on our children!" (NIV)

And all the people said, "His blood shall be on us and on our children!" (NASB)

Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children. (KJV)
In other words, they are accepting collective guilt, which is remarkably unusual for a lynch mob.

And we are told in the previous verses and chapters that the Jewish leaders found him guilty of blasphemy and that the citizens of Jerusalem turned from giving him a hero's welcome to wanting him dead. And also that they pushed Pontius Pilate into sentencing him.

So that's where Jews as Christ-killers came from.




I know where it comes from, but Mathew 27:25 isn't in any way an instruction to Christians to persecute and kill Jews, so if you're trying to imply that, you're using very spurious reasonings indeed. And no-where in the Bible does it "advise" Christians to persecute and kill Jews, especially not in light of Romans 11.

So no, I'll have to stand again and say that I don't agree with either Luther or Hitler or you citing Matt 27:25 as any sort of Christian justification for Luther or Hitler because it just isn't, nothing near it....

[lpetrich]

I know where it comes from, but Mathew 27:25 isn't in any way an instruction to Christians to persecute and kill Jews, so if you're trying to imply that, you're using very spurious reasonings indeed. And no-where in the Bible does it "advise" Christians to persecute and kill Jews, especially not in light of Romans 11.
One could reconcile the two by claiming that the only good Jews are "Jews for Jesus".

But SallyAnne, I notice that you've been defending the nastier parts of the Bible as describing well-deserved punishments for various sins. But if one holds such a view, and one also believes that Jews other than "Jews for Jesus" are nasty Christ-killers, might one conclude that Jews deserve to be persecuted?

[Lisa0315]

(SallyAnne, I'm a little surprised that someone European with a history degree has never heard of Cardinal Richelieu.)

The important thing about Hitler's anti-Semitism is that it didn't spring fully formed from his own brain. It is also significant that his anti-Semitic ideas so rapidly found such fertile ground among his own people and in the countries the Nazis overran.

Why do you think that was so? I know what I think. I suggest you read this Wiki article: History of antisemitism. Christians didn't invent anti-Semitism, but by painting the Jews as "Christ-killers" and persecuting them for hundreds of years, they prepared the ground for Hitler.

Wasn't the Cardinal the one who had all the French Hugonots killed? I can't remember now. *goes to look*

Edit: Yeah, I was right. He is the one who starved them out. The account in Wikipedia is not the account I was taught in my history class, but close enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinal_Richelieu

Lisa

[Matty]

So please tell me where do i find the definitive list of dos and donts and correct interpretations of the Bible Sally Anne? Surely something as important as a manual to live your life by, wouldnt all BE OPEN TO PERSONAL INTERPRETATION WOULD IT?


And i see from the other thread you misunderstand quite a bit about science, the claims therof, and evolution in particular. There are a lot of we scientist types here and i say this genuinely, if you want some stuff broken down and explained more clearly just ask, the answer will always be yeah.

[Lisa0315]

I can vouch for that, Matty. At TR, I was allowed to have a exclusive engagement thread so I could learn about evolution without a pile-on. It was pretty cool actually. People around here love to teach and answer questions. People around here do not abide ignorance well though. Far better to get educated than to lose respect so that no one will ever listen to anything you ever have to say again. I have made that mistake more than once myself.

Lisa

[tjakey]

Sorry Jobar, I guess I just have a different take on religion. Not to pick on Sally Anne specifically, any religious person defending creationism and the supposedly good parts of believing on a secular forum with endless (and erroneous ) claims and statements, and who then complains about being "piled on" is pathetic. What do they expect, that we are going to burn all our books on biology, astronomy, physics, geology, cosmology, history, and run down to the local lunatic barn to get "filled with the spirit?" Religion is blowing up other sect's churches, bombing funeral processions, throwing acid in the faces of little girls, beheading people and posting the vids, stoning women to death for having an affair, flying jets into buildings, enslaving women in country after country, executing gay people, destroying artwork, releasing gas into subway tunnels, burning books, bulldozing people's houses claiming that god holds the land deed, insisting my kids should pray in schools, working to have its mythology taught as science, using tax dollars to advance false ideology, and doing everything it can to drag human kind back into the dark ages. These people are not harmless, they are not good, and I am not going to pretend they have anything to offer other than oppression, ignorance, intolerance, hate and war. And all of this (once again) in the names of gods that do not exist and that any person who pulls his (or her) head out of his (or her) ass can discover for themselves do not exit. It really isn't rocket science.

Religious fundamentalism is self inflicted metal illness. Complete ignorance of how the cosmos actually functions (say biology?) can only come when a person deliberately ignores and dismisses what hundreds of thousands of scientists working untold millions of hours have discovered to be true. In addition the delusions (the religious call it "faith") are the most important thing these people have; they will cling to them at all costs. Nothing can pierce that kind of wall of ignorance and bigotry. Then add the twisted persecution complex that religion (specifically Christianity) builds into its ideology and even trying to hold a discussion with a religious person only serves to reinforce the delusion.

I drop by this forum because it is a "secular cafe." Religious people, (who apparently can't read any better than they can reason) should expect nothing but constant challenge to their delusions by any means a secular person cares to employ. I don't walk into church and challenge their ignorance. I don't picket outside their Mosques. Here they are nothing but object lessons or sources of amusement. They are wrong about their god claims. We know they are wrong. What else can happen?

[Lisa0315]

Secular does not mean atheist. It means apart from, separate from religion, but the wishes of the board are to have lively intellectual discussions on all subjects including religion.

I hope I am not speaking out of turn here because I am not one of the owners or a member of staff. However, as I was asked to invite other Christians here, I want to make sure that people are aware that we are not second-classed citizens, but full members.

Poke at the arguments. I am well aware of how many holes there are but look on it as a teaching opportunity rather than a reason to get angry.

Lisa

[DMB]

In addition the delusions (the religious call it "faith") are the most important thing these people have; they will cling to them at all costs. Nothing can pierce that kind of wall of ignorance and bigotry. Then add the twisted persecution complex that religion (specifically Christianity) builds into its ideology and even trying to hold a discussion with a religious person only serves to reinforce the delusion.

If this were true, there would be no deconversions.

I drop by this forum because it is a "secular cafe." Religious people, (who apparently can't read any better than they can reason) should expect nothing but constant challenge to their delusions by any means a secular person cares to employ. I don't walk into church and challenge their ignorance. I don't picket outside their Mosques. Here they are nothing but object lessons or sources of amusement. They are wrong about their god claims. We know they are wrong. What else can happen?

Secular=atheist. All the staff and the majority of members are unbelievers, but this isn't a sort of atheist church. See our mission statement and FAQs. (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=544)

The Secular Café primarily serves a non-religious community, but diversity is encouraged; people from any religious perspective are welcome to participate and become a part of the board's community.

and

Are religious people welcome here?

Certainly! And all members are free to put forward reasons why people should accept their beliefs, religious or otherwise. But be forewarned that any beliefs whatsoever may be subject to critical examination. While we believe in extending respect to people, the same does not necessarily apply to their ideas. Religious members have the same privileges as any other member. Proselytizing, however, will be confined to the Smoking Section.

I would like to encourage everyone to attack views and ideas that they don't like, but to try not to make personal attacks on individuals, even on people who iirritate the shit out you.

[tjakey]

Secular does not mean atheist. It means apart from, separate from religion, but the wishes of the board are to have lively intellectual discussions on all subjects including religion.

I hope I am not speaking out of turn here because I am not one of the owners or a member of staff. However, as I was asked to invite other Christians here, I want to make sure that people are aware that we are not second-classed citizens, but full members.

Poke at the arguments. I am well aware of how many holes there are but look on it as a teaching opportunity rather than a reason to get angry.

Lisa

Lisa, just exactly how is one to have an "intellectual discussion" with people who are doing the intellectual equivalent of claiming that the earth is flat and the center of the universe? I'll argue that the earth really is round, point out the overwhelming evidence, post a picture or two, hell; invite you to stand on the shore with me and watch the freaking boats disappear over the horizon hull first; and your response will still be, "the Bible teaches that the earth is flat."

I'm all for having a debate with people who look at the world from a different point of view, I'll even enjoy just a fun filled bit of give-and-take with some nutter who knows how to turn a phrase, but religious people who insist that they know the mind of a god and are determined, (in fact required) to tell us what that is? They don't tend to fall into either category.

And might I add, the title of this thread is "Preach the Gospel always..." It isn't, "Let us discuss religion," or "I think I talk to god and want to see what you think," it was a blatant challenge on a secular forum. "Preach the Gospel always." Okay, go for it if you think you can but I am going to gun you down every time.

Unless I misunderstood what a Secular Forum was for. In which case I will gladly apologize to the owners of this board and be on my merry way.

[Lisa0315]

Secular does not mean atheist. It means apart from, separate from religion, but the wishes of the board are to have lively intellectual discussions on all subjects including religion.

I hope I am not speaking out of turn here because I am not one of the owners or a member of staff. However, as I was asked to invite other Christians here, I want to make sure that people are aware that we are not second-classed citizens, but full members.

Poke at the arguments. I am well aware of how many holes there are but look on it as a teaching opportunity rather than a reason to get angry.

Lisa

Lisa, just exactly how is one to have an "intellectual discussion" with people who are doing the intellectual equivalent of claiming that the earth is flat and the center of the universe? I'll argue that the earth really is round, point out the overwhelming evidence, post a picture or two, hell; invite you to stand on the shore with me and watch the freaking boats disappear over the horizon hull first; and your response will still be, "the Bible teaches that the earth is flat."

I'm all for having a debate with people who look at the world from a different point of view, I'll even enjoy just a fun filled bit of give-and-take with some nutter who knows how to turn a phrase, but religious people who insist that they know the mind of a god and are determined, (in fact required) to tell us what that is? They don't tend to fall into either category.

I am a religious person. Do you find me a nutter? There will always be a nutter or two in every group, even the rational, logical atheists. ;) If you find yourself involved with a nutter, walk away. No point in beating your head against a wall. I know that is a lot easier said than done.

My point is that if you are the intellectual superior in the conversation, teach it and preach it, but don't let ignorance get you to the point of frustrated flaming.

Let me give you an example from my world view: Jesus was teaching and preaching to folks who thought they knew it all, right? Jesus gave a parable of the seed which maybe you can take to heart. Essentially, His job (and ours) is to sow the seed. According to Christ, only 3 out of 4 will actually receive the seed into fertile ground. Even so, that 1 out of 4 is worth the idiocy of the other 3, right?

We don't stop teaching because we encounter idiots most of the time. We continue for that one who might learn something and will then pass it along to others.

Admittedly, this is a Christian viewpoint, but it can be applied to almost anything. :)

Lisa

[Matty]

FWIW i think all religious people, are at least slightly mental :)

[Lisa0315]

FWIW i think all religious people, are at least slightly mental :)

Well, then, my job here is done. ;)

[tjakey]

Lisa, I don't know if you are a nutter or not but you are certainly correct that there are a couple in every group. As for teaching, I am all for it. In fact I spent many years teaching at a University flight program, and still hold CFI, CFII, and MEI certificates for teaching flying, instrument flying, and multi-engine operations. But here's the gig, I can teach nearly anyone to fly who wants to learn. But a religious fundamentalist is like someone who insists that they can fly because they have the latest Microsoft Flight simulator at home and really, they should be teaching me. I can ignore such a person, I can laugh at such a person, I can even use such a person as a object lesson, but there is no way I can teach such a person. Why should I try?

When it comes to religious debates I am (usually) at least as much an expert as the person I am debating. I am equally human, I have had a pretty varied life with its share of experiences, I used to be a fundamentalist, did the bible study programs, taught Sunday Schools and home bible studies, did some lay preaching. My Brother in Law and one Son in Law are ministers...I know a bit of what I speak. (At least when it comes to Christian Protestant, fundamentalist and American Catholic ideology. The university was a Catholic School.)

Does religion often make me angry? Sure. Read my previous list and explain to me how anyone is NOT angry at religion. Even religious people should be angry at religion. Every Catholic woman and mother should be walking out of the church, every Muslim woman, brother and father should be denouncing current Islamic law out of pure disgust and deep felt furry. Every thinking person on the planet should be pointing out that South Africa treated Blacks better than Islam treats women, and was roundly denounced by the entire western world for their ignorance and racism. I said that I don't picket Mosques, but we damn well should!

In my world view ignoring religion's atrocities or, even worse, trying to justify them somehow, is equivalent to siding with slave owners and tyrants. If there ever was a Jesus, if he had an inclining of justice, morality and compassion, and if he appeared on the current scene, he would be furious at religion. That there are so many atrocities currently being committed by religion, and that no god anywhere is lifting a finger to bring (his)(her)(its) followers to heel, is pretty good evidence that no gods exist.

[Lisa0315]

Lisa, I don't know if you are a nutter or not but you are certainly correct that there are a couple in every group. As for teaching, I am all for it. In fact I spent many years teaching at a University flight program, and still hold CFI, CFII, and MEI certificates for teaching flying, instrument flying, and multi-engine operations. But here's the gig, I can teach nearly anyone to fly who wants to learn. But a religious fundamentalist is like someone who insists that they can fly because they have the latest Microsoft Flight simulator at home and really, they should be teaching me. I can ignore such a person, I can laugh at such a person, I can even use such a person as a object lesson, but there is no way I can teach such a person. Why should I try?

When it comes to religious debates I am (usually) at least as much an expert as the person I am debating. I am equally human, I have had a pretty varied life with its share of experiences, I used to be a fundamentalist, did the bible study programs, taught Sunday Schools and home bible studies, did some lay preaching. My Brother in Law and one Son in Law are ministers...I know a bit of what I speak. (At least when it comes to Christian Protestant, fundamentalist and American Catholic ideology. The university was a Catholic School.)

Does religion often make me angry? Sure. Read my previous list and explain to me how anyone is NOT angry at religion. Even religious people should be angry at religion. Every Catholic woman and mother should be walking out of the church, every Muslim woman, brother and father should be denouncing current Islamic law out of pure disgust and deep felt furry. Every thinking person on the planet should be pointing out that South Africa treated Blacks better than Islam treats women, and was roundly denounced by the entire western world for their ignorance and racism. I said that I don't picket Mosques, but we damn well should!

In my world view ignoring religion's atrocities or, even worse, trying to justify them somehow, is equivalent to siding with slave owners and tyrants. If there ever was a Jesus, if he had an inclining of justice, morality and compassion, and if he appeared on the current scene, he would be furious at religion. That there are so many atrocities currently being committed by religion, and that no god anywhere is lifting a finger to bring (his)(her)(its) followers to heel, is pretty good evidence that no gods exist.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but I bolded the part that really hit me between the eyes. I think Jesus is furious right now. There is a timetable and these things will end, and all of our hypocrisy will be revealed. I imagine there will not be alot of happy people but there will be a lot of weeping people. It won't be fear half as much as it will be from shame of how we took something so pure, so beautiful, and so full of love, and turned it into an anthem to war, slavery, and general hatred towards people.

Lisa

[David B]

Lisa, I don't know if you are a nutter or not but you are certainly correct that there are a couple in every group. As for teaching, I am all for it. In fact I spent many years teaching at a University flight program, and still hold CFI, CFII, and MEI certificates for teaching flying, instrument flying, and multi-engine operations. But here's the gig, I can teach nearly anyone to fly who wants to learn. But a religious fundamentalist is like someone who insists that they can fly because they have the latest Microsoft Flight simulator at home and really, they should be teaching me. I can ignore such a person, I can laugh at such a person, I can even use such a person as a object lesson, but there is no way I can teach such a person. Why should I try?

When it comes to religious debates I am (usually) at least as much an expert as the person I am debating. I am equally human, I have had a pretty varied life with its share of experiences, I used to be a fundamentalist, did the bible study programs, taught Sunday Schools and home bible studies, did some lay preaching. My Brother in Law and one Son in Law are ministers...I know a bit of what I speak. (At least when it comes to Christian Protestant, fundamentalist and American Catholic ideology. The university was a Catholic School.)

Does religion often make me angry? Sure. Read my previous list and explain to me how anyone is NOT angry at religion. Even religious people should be angry at religion. Every Catholic woman and mother should be walking out of the church, every Muslim woman, brother and father should be denouncing current Islamic law out of pure disgust and deep felt furry. Every thinking person on the planet should be pointing out that South Africa treated Blacks better than Islam treats women, and was roundly denounced by the entire western world for their ignorance and racism. I said that I don't picket Mosques, but we damn well should!

In my world view ignoring religion's atrocities or, even worse, trying to justify them somehow, is equivalent to siding with slave owners and tyrants. If there ever was a Jesus, if he had an inclining of justice, morality and compassion, and if he appeared on the current scene, he would be furious at religion. That there are so many atrocities currently being committed by religion, and that no god anywhere is lifting a finger to bring (his)(her)(its) followers to heel, is pretty good evidence that no gods exist.

I agree with you on much of this, but have a look at the bits I've bolded.

You used to be a fundamentalist, and so did a number of members here, and on other boards I've frequented in the past.

It is bloody hard to persuade a fundy to that their faith is misguided, but there are successes, both in moving them from a YEC biblical literalist stance to an less virulent, OEC, evolution and big bang accepting, largely biblical allegorical stance, or, indeed, leading them to the light. They are not a majority, but they are there.

David

[tjakey]

David, of course you make a valid point. I was a fundie for a long time and claimed to "win" my share of debates with atheists. How much did those debates influence me later? I can't say. I do know that my first steps away from faith had do with my decision to really understand the doctrine of hell. The harder I looked, the more I studied, the more untenable it became. Pulling on that one thread eventually unraveled the whole tapestry. Faith, for me, failed from the inside out. It would be kind of silly for me to assume it works that way for everyone.

Lisa, you seem to me a person with a good heart. But if Jesus is furious right now then he is also embarrassing impotent for a being who supposedly created the cosmos with a word. I mean, shit, I could do a better job keeping the nutcases in line just by a bit of a flu-bug here or there. A good case of airsickness for someone thinking about hijacking a plane, a dizzy spell just as someone rigs the detonator, a killer case of the runs when someone tries to open the driver's side door on a suicide car, a passing feinting spell when someone raises an arm to strike a child or pull a trigger... For a god who claims to keep the various billions upon billions of planets, stars and galaxies in their respective orbits, putting the check on nut-cases shouldn't be that hard. Even I, a simple airplane driver, can come up with pretty easy ways to get it done. I just don't have the ability. What is Jesus' excuse? Does he lack the will or does he lack the ability?

[Lisa0315]

David, of course you make a valid point. I was a fundie for a long time and claimed to "win" my share of debates with atheists. How much did those debates influence me later? I can't say. I do know that my first steps away from faith had do with my decision to really understand the doctrine of hell. The harder I looked, the more I studied, the more untenable it became. Pulling on that one thread eventually unraveled the whole tapestry. Faith, for me, failed from the inside out. It would be kind of silly for me to assume it works that way for everyone.

Lisa, you seem to me a person with a good heart. But if Jesus is furious right now then he is also embarrassing impotent for a being who supposedly created the cosmos with a word. I mean, shit, I could do a better job keeping the nutcases in line just by a bit of a flu-bug here or there. A good case of airsickness for someone thinking about hijacking a plane, a dizzy spell just as someone rigs the detonator, a killer case of the runs when someone tries to open the driver's side door on a suicide car, a passing feinting spell when someone raises an arm to strike a child or pull a trigger... For a god who claims to keep the various billions upon billions of planets, stars and galaxies in their respective orbits, putting the check on nut-cases shouldn't be that hard. Even I, a simple airplane driver, can come up with pretty easy ways to get it done. I just don't have the ability. What is Jesus' excuse? Does he lack the will or does he lack the ability?

No, hon, this goes into the doctrine of grace. It is a non-interference clause for a period of time. Prior to the age of grace, we had the Old Testament, the wrathful God who judged nations and destroyed them. After Christ though, God waits on judgment as an act of mercy if you will. So, God does not punish evil right now, nor does He hold back those who claim to follow Him and commit attrocities in His name.

Those who preach that God is punishing America for this or that are dead wrong. Right now, it rains on the good and the evil. Disasters happen to all of us. Blessings happen to all of us. There is no distinguishment from the two. God is sitting back and waiting. He waits to judge with the hope that some will "get it right". A few do. A few. Those few, apparantly, are worth the many who don't.

When God does judge the world, then, yeah, evil will end, and hypocrites will be called out. My uncle (the pastor) has a saying that I admire very much. He says, "I would rather go to church with hypocrites than go to hell with them."

There are always going to be weeds growing up among the flowers. The flowers need to be so strong in beauty that they grow despite the weeds trying to choke them out.

Lisa

[David B]

David, of course you make a valid point. I was a fundie for a long time and claimed to "win" my share of debates with atheists. How much did those debates influence me later? I can't say. I do know that my first steps away from faith had do with my decision to really understand the doctrine of hell. The harder I looked, the more I studied, the more untenable it became. Pulling on that one thread eventually unraveled the whole tapestry. Faith, for me, failed from the inside out. It would be kind of silly for me to assume it works that way for everyone.

Lisa, you seem to me a person with a good heart. But if Jesus is furious right now then he is also embarrassing impotent for a being who supposedly created the cosmos with a word. I mean, shit, I could do a better job keeping the nutcases in line just by a bit of a flu-bug here or there. A good case of airsickness for someone thinking about hijacking a plane, a dizzy spell just as someone rigs the detonator, a killer case of the runs when someone tries to open the driver's side door on a suicide car, a passing feinting spell when someone raises an arm to strike a child or pull a trigger... For a god who claims to keep the various billions upon billions of planets, stars and galaxies in their respective orbits, putting the check on nut-cases shouldn't be that hard. Even I, a simple airplane driver, can come up with pretty easy ways to get it done. I just don't have the ability. What is Jesus' excuse? Does he lack the will or does he lack the ability?

No, hon, this goes into the doctrine of grace. It is a non-interference clause for a period of time. Prior to the age of grace, we had the Old Testament, the wrathful God who judged nations and destroyed them. After Christ though, God waits on judgment as an act of mercy if you will. So, God does not punish evil right now, nor does He hold back those who claim to follow Him and commit attrocities in His name.

Those who preach that God is punishing America for this or that are dead wrong. Right now, it rains on the good and the evil. Disasters happen to all of us. Blessings happen to all of us. There is no distinguishment from the two. God is sitting back and waiting. He waits to judge with the hope that some will "get it right". A few do. A few. Those few, apparantly, are worth the many who don't.

When God does judge the world, then, yeah, evil will end, and hypocrites will be called out. My uncle (the pastor) has a saying that I admire very much. He says, "I would rather go to church with hypocrites than go to hell with them."

There are always going to be weeds growing up among the flowers. The flowers need to be so strong in beauty that they grow despite the weeds trying to choke them out.

Lisa

A bit fanciful, don't you think, Lisa?

David

[Lisa0315]

David, of course you make a valid point. I was a fundie for a long time and claimed to "win" my share of debates with atheists. How much did those debates influence me later? I can't say. I do know that my first steps away from faith had do with my decision to really understand the doctrine of hell. The harder I looked, the more I studied, the more untenable it became. Pulling on that one thread eventually unraveled the whole tapestry. Faith, for me, failed from the inside out. It would be kind of silly for me to assume it works that way for everyone.

Lisa, you seem to me a person with a good heart. But if Jesus is furious right now then he is also embarrassing impotent for a being who supposedly created the cosmos with a word. I mean, shit, I could do a better job keeping the nutcases in line just by a bit of a flu-bug here or there. A good case of airsickness for someone thinking about hijacking a plane, a dizzy spell just as someone rigs the detonator, a killer case of the runs when someone tries to open the driver's side door on a suicide car, a passing feinting spell when someone raises an arm to strike a child or pull a trigger... For a god who claims to keep the various billions upon billions of planets, stars and galaxies in their respective orbits, putting the check on nut-cases shouldn't be that hard. Even I, a simple airplane driver, can come up with pretty easy ways to get it done. I just don't have the ability. What is Jesus' excuse? Does he lack the will or does he lack the ability?

No, hon, this goes into the doctrine of grace. It is a non-interference clause for a period of time. Prior to the age of grace, we had the Old Testament, the wrathful God who judged nations and destroyed them. After Christ though, God waits on judgment as an act of mercy if you will. So, God does not punish evil right now, nor does He hold back those who claim to follow Him and commit attrocities in His name.

Those who preach that God is punishing America for this or that are dead wrong. Right now, it rains on the good and the evil. Disasters happen to all of us. Blessings happen to all of us. There is no distinguishment from the two. God is sitting back and waiting. He waits to judge with the hope that some will "get it right". A few do. A few. Those few, apparantly, are worth the many who don't.

When God does judge the world, then, yeah, evil will end, and hypocrites will be called out. My uncle (the pastor) has a saying that I admire very much. He says, "I would rather go to church with hypocrites than go to hell with them."

There are always going to be weeds growing up among the flowers. The flowers need to be so strong in beauty that they grow despite the weeds trying to choke them out.

Lisa

A bit fanciful, don't you think, Lisa?

David

Nope, it is what I believe.

Lisa

[David B]

No, hon, this goes into the doctrine of grace. It is a non-interference clause for a period of time. Prior to the age of grace, we had the Old Testament, the wrathful God who judged nations and destroyed them. After Christ though, God waits on judgment as an act of mercy if you will. So, God does not punish evil right now, nor does He hold back those who claim to follow Him and commit attrocities in His name.

Those who preach that God is punishing America for this or that are dead wrong. Right now, it rains on the good and the evil. Disasters happen to all of us. Blessings happen to all of us. There is no distinguishment from the two. God is sitting back and waiting. He waits to judge with the hope that some will "get it right". A few do. A few. Those few, apparantly, are worth the many who don't.

When God does judge the world, then, yeah, evil will end, and hypocrites will be called out. My uncle (the pastor) has a saying that I admire very much. He says, "I would rather go to church with hypocrites than go to hell with them."

There are always going to be weeds growing up among the flowers. The flowers need to be so strong in beauty that they grow despite the weeds trying to choke them out.

Lisa

A bit fanciful, don't you think, Lisa?

David

Nope, it is what I believe.

Lisa

And what you believe cannot be fanciful?

David

[Lisa0315]

A bit fanciful, don't you think, Lisa?

David

Nope, it is what I believe.

Lisa

And what you believe cannot be fanciful?

David

Well, fanciful gives me images of dreamy rather than serious. I guess it is in the eye of the beholder.

Lisa

[lpetrich]

(LP: snipped for brevity)

In my world view ignoring religion's atrocities or, even worse, trying to justify them somehow, is equivalent to siding with slave owners and tyrants. If there ever was a Jesus, if he had an inclining of justice, morality and compassion, and if he appeared on the current scene, he would be furious at religion. That there are so many atrocities currently being committed by religion, and that no god anywhere is lifting a finger to bring (his)(her)(its) followers to heel, is pretty good evidence that no gods exist.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but I bolded the part that really hit me between the eyes. I think Jesus is furious right now. There is a timetable and these things will end, and all of our hypocrisy will be revealed.
As Bill Maher had pointed out in a similar context, what is God waiting for? Or Jesus Christ or whoever.


... Lisa, you seem to me a person with a good heart. But if Jesus is furious right now then he is also embarrassing impotent for a being who supposedly created the cosmos with a word. I mean, shit, I could do a better job keeping the nutcases in line just by a bit of a flu-bug here or there.

... What is Jesus' excuse? Does he lack the will or does he lack the ability?

No, hon, this goes into the doctrine of grace. It is a non-interference clause for a period of time.
So you are claiming that God has a right to be a lazy bum?

Prior to the age of grace, we had the Old Testament, the wrathful God who judged nations and destroyed them. After Christ though, God waits on judgment as an act of mercy if you will. So, God does not punish evil right now, nor does He hold back those who claim to follow Him and commit attrocities in His name.
Punishment is not necessary when one can reprogram. Lisa0315, I am a creator and designer of software, and whenever it misbehaves, I rewrite it to try to keep it from misbehaving.

If I can do more than an allegedly omnipotent being is supposedly willing to, then that's really saying something.

[Lisa0315]

(LP: snipped for brevity)

In my world view ignoring religion's atrocities or, even worse, trying to justify them somehow, is equivalent to siding with slave owners and tyrants. If there ever was a Jesus, if he had an inclining of justice, morality and compassion, and if he appeared on the current scene, he would be furious at religion. That there are so many atrocities currently being committed by religion, and that no god anywhere is lifting a finger to bring (his)(her)(its) followers to heel, is pretty good evidence that no gods exist.

I agree with much of what you wrote, but I bolded the part that really hit me between the eyes. I think Jesus is furious right now. There is a timetable and these things will end, and all of our hypocrisy will be revealed.
As Bill Maher had pointed out in a similar context, what is God waiting for? Or Jesus Christ or whoever.



No, hon, this goes into the doctrine of grace. It is a non-interference clause for a period of time.
So you are claiming that God has a right to be a lazy bum?

Prior to the age of grace, we had the Old Testament, the wrathful God who judged nations and destroyed them. After Christ though, God waits on judgment as an act of mercy if you will. So, God does not punish evil right now, nor does He hold back those who claim to follow Him and commit attrocities in His name.
Punishment is not necessary when one can reprogram. Lisa0315, I am a creator and designer of software, and whenever it misbehaves, I rewrite it to try to keep it from misbehaving.

If I can do more than an allegedly omnipotent being is supposedly willing to, then that's really saying something.

I don't think you or anyone else has enough information to make that judgement.

Lisa

[maddog]

I agree with much of what you wrote, but I bolded the part that really hit me between the eyes. I think Jesus is furious right now. There is a timetable and these things will end, and all of our hypocrisy will be revealed.
As Bill Maher had pointed out in a similar context, what is God waiting for? Or Jesus Christ or whoever.


So you are claiming that God has a right to be a lazy bum?

Prior to the age of grace, we had the Old Testament, the wrathful God who judged nations and destroyed them. After Christ though, God waits on judgment as an act of mercy if you will. So, God does not punish evil right now, nor does He hold back those who claim to follow Him and commit attrocities in His name.
Punishment is not necessary when one can reprogram. Lisa0315, I am a creator and designer of software, and whenever it misbehaves, I rewrite it to try to keep it from misbehaving.

If I can do more than an allegedly omnipotent being is supposedly willing to, then that's really saying something.

I don't think you or anyone else has enough information to make that judgement.

Lisa

That's actually a very interesting philosophical problem. Believers seem to think that they have enough information to make the judgment that "God is good." The only way we human beings have of knowing what is "good," or what "good" means is what we -- all of us, theist and non-theist alike -- have access to, what we can know and apprehend about the world and the way it works. We, as human beings, have to ALREADY KNOW what "good" means, in order to make that judgment. Thus knowledge of what is "good" is precedent to a judgment that "God is good," and believers do not question that everyone has enough information about "goodness" to make the judgment.

[Lisa0315]

As Bill Maher had pointed out in a similar context, what is God waiting for? Or Jesus Christ or whoever.


So you are claiming that God has a right to be a lazy bum?


Punishment is not necessary when one can reprogram. Lisa0315, I am a creator and designer of software, and whenever it misbehaves, I rewrite it to try to keep it from misbehaving.

If I can do more than an allegedly omnipotent being is supposedly willing to, then that's really saying something.

I don't think you or anyone else has enough information to make that judgement.

Lisa

That's actually a very interesting philosophical problem. Believers seem to think that they have enough information to make the judgment that "God is good." The only way we human beings have of knowing what is "good," or what "good" means is what we -- all of us, theist and non-theist alike -- have access to, what we can know and apprehend about the world and the way it works. We, as human beings, have to ALREADY KNOW what "good" means, in order to make that judgment. Thus knowledge of what is "good" is precedent to a judgment that "God is good," and believers do not question that everyone has enough information about "goodness" to make the judgment.

hmm moment!

Never thought about it like that.

Lisa

[tjakey]

Grace? Really? You consider it grace to stand by and watch a little girl have acid tossed in her face, a young man beaten and tied to a fence post to die of exposure, a woman stoned to death (tortured to death) for having an affair, a young boy raped by a priest, a daughter murdered by her brother at the urging of her Father (Honor Killing - honor killing!..words escape me), people leaping, holding hands, from the top of the WTC to escape the horror of being burned alive...this is your idea of grace? How is it that killers are due more grace than their victims?

If that is the best your god can do then might I (gently) suggest that he is not worthy of your love or your worship. You would never tolerate such things from your own, not if you could do something to prevent them. That being true, may I also (again gently) suggest that you know more about grace, justice, love and compassion than the god you follow.

[Matty]

Nit pick, didnt you mean comprehend Maddog?


I don't think you or anyone else has enough information to make that judgement.

Lisa

Of course they do. If you (generic you not you you) claim that god is omniprescent, all powerful and all loving then he should have abolished suffering with a click of his fingers (or not made it in the first place of course)

the fact that suffering/evil exists means that god is either indifferent (not all loving) , impotent(not all powerful) or ignorant(not all knowing) .


This silliness about well hes waiting for the right conditions before he returns to smite evil is clearly bollocks, since when does an all powerful messiah wait for conditions as opposed to create them?

[Lisa0315]

Grace? Really? You consider it grace to stand by and watch a little girl have acid tossed in her face, a young man beaten and tied to a fence post to die of exposure, a woman stoned to death (tortured to death) for having an affair, a young boy raped by a priest, a daughter murdered by her brother at the urging of her Father (Honor Killing - honor killing!..words escape me), people leaping, holding hands, from the top of the WTC to escape the horror of being burned alive...this is your idea of grace? How is it that killers are due more grace than their victims?

If that is the best your god can do then might I (gently) suggest that he is not worthy of your love or your worship. You would never tolerate such things from your own, not if you could do something to prevent them. That being true, may I also (again gently) suggest that you know more about grace, justice, love and compassion than the god you follow.

Is it better than tossing the lot of us into hell?

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

...and damnit, stop making me argue from the fundie side.

Lisa

[Matty]

Is it better than tossing the lot of us into hell?

Lisa

ask the woman being strangled by her brother if is makes the slightest bit of difference to her.


also why would an all powerful being HAVE to do any such thing?

[DMB]

The grace doctrine is a fascinating one. It suffers from the larger problem that this infinite, eternal god, operates over shortish stretches of time. I say shortish, because in comparison with the age of the universe or even the age of life on earth, or even the history of our human species, they are shortish.

Nothing much happens for millions of years except that the world goes on its way with Nature red in tooth and claw, huge geological upheavals, massive extinctions, same old, same old. Then apparently well on in the history of humanity, this supergod has a bit of intereaction with a small Middle Eastern tribe. Then in the blink of an eye, so to speak, supergod is incarnate as an obscure member of this obscure people, leaving no unquestionably reliable accounts of what happened. Then we get another shortish period of same old, same old, but with the promise that something special is going to happen some time.

If supergod really cares at all about human beings and the rest of "creation", why the unequal treatment of them? If it matters that one should believe anything about this incarnation, the people who actually met him have a bit of an advantage over the others. Is that fair? And why don't we get better documentation anyway?

[maddog]

Nit pick, didnt you mean comprehend Maddog?


apprehend = perceive
comprehend = understand

I used the word I intended to use, according what I understood it to mean; thanks, though Matty :)

[Lisa0315]

I personally think we are a pawns in a cosmic chess game between two deities each fighting for the right to rule the universe. Yeah, I am dead serious.

Lisa

[lpetrich]

... Punishment is not necessary when one can reprogram. Lisa0315, I am a creator and designer of software, and whenever it misbehaves, I rewrite it to try to keep it from misbehaving.

If I can do more than an allegedly omnipotent being is supposedly willing to, then that's really saying something.
I don't think you or anyone else has enough information to make that judgement.
What gives you that idea?

Grace? Really? (atrocities snipped for brevity...)

If that is the best your god can do then might I (gently) suggest that he is not worthy of your love or your worship. You would never tolerate such things from your own, not if you could do something to prevent them. That being true, may I also (again gently) suggest that you know more about grace, justice, love and compassion than the god you follow.
Is it better than tossing the lot of us into hell?
Is that the only alternative that you can imagine? There is a better option. Reprogramming people so that they will always be virtuous.

[David B]

I personally think we are a pawns in a cosmic chess game between two deities each fighting for the right to rule the universe. Yeah, I am dead serious.

Lisa

One deity wanting mankind to have knowledge, the other wanting mankind in ignorance?:evil:

Again - is not this a bit on the fanciful side?

David

[maddog]

Grace? Really? You consider it grace to stand by and watch a little girl have acid tossed in her face, a young man beaten and tied to a fence post to die of exposure, a woman stoned to death (tortured to death) for having an affair, a young boy raped by a priest, a daughter murdered by her brother at the urging of her Father (Honor Killing - honor killing!..words escape me), people leaping, holding hands, from the top of the WTC to escape the horror of being burned alive...this is your idea of grace? How is it that killers are due more grace than their victims?

If that is the best your god can do then might I (gently) suggest that he is not worthy of your love or your worship. You would never tolerate such things from your own, not if you could do something to prevent them. That being true, may I also (again gently) suggest that you know more about grace, justice, love and compassion than the god you follow.

Is it better than tossing the lot of us into hell?

Lisa

The doctrine of hell is also quite fascinating. As far as I can tell, there is no necessity of hell. It also depends on what you think "hell" means or consists of. Most of the believers I know are Christian, and most of those Christians seem to conceive of hell as an eternal torture, hellfire, etc. But who created that kind of hell? and why? The answers I have tended to see (again, posited mostly by USA Christians) are that "sin" (and EVERYONE is a sinner) requires "punishment." I don't understand why that would be the case. It seems a very visceral reaction, a primitive and simplistic moral construct.

In real life, with real human beings, I often find it much more helpful to instruct, educate, encourage, practice, talk about things with, and other of that kinds of activity than "punishment." (that sentence is grammatically awful, I know) Punishment, inflicting pain, retribution -- creates hurt and resentment, and often doesn't change the problematic conduct. Rehabilitation, education, help, kindness and caring, clear communications, a mutual foundation of respect, is far more successful in gaining peace and cooperation and harmony. In my experience, anyway.

What's so great or necessary about "punishment" that education and kindness wouldn't do better? From God's perspective, that is. I don't get it.

[Lisa0315]

I personally think we are a pawns in a cosmic chess game between two deities each fighting for the right to rule the universe. Yeah, I am dead serious.

Lisa

One deity wanting mankind to have knowledge, the other wanting mankind in ignorance?:evil:

Again - is not this a bit on the fanciful side?

David

Damn it! Okay, I am fanciful, poetic, and stuff. I am a writer afterall. Not for a living, but yeah, always have wrote stuff.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

I personally think we are a pawns in a cosmic chess game between two deities each fighting for the right to rule the universe. Yeah, I am dead serious.

Lisa

One deity wanting mankind to have knowledge, the other wanting mankind in ignorance?:evil:

Again - is not this a bit on the fanciful side?

David

Maybe the Book of Job is the truest book in the whole Bible. That is what scares the shit out of me.

Lisa

[maddog]

Damn it! Okay, I am fanciful, poetic, and stuff. I am a writer afterall. Not for a living, but yeah, always have wrote stuff.

Lisa

:evil: A thousand pardons, I am about to be revolting ... but blame it on Matty, who woke up my Grammar Nazi :D

I ... always have wrote written stuff.

[David B]

I personally think we are a pawns in a cosmic chess game between two deities each fighting for the right to rule the universe. Yeah, I am dead serious.

Lisa

One deity wanting mankind to have knowledge, the other wanting mankind in ignorance?:evil:

Again - is not this a bit on the fanciful side?

David

Maybe the Book of Job is the truest book in the whole Bible. That is what scares the shit out of me.

Lisa

Maybe Zeus did endlessly punish Prometheus for giving the knowledge of fire to mankind. It is, in my judgement, as likely to be true is as the Book of Job, and it worries me not at all.

David

[maddog]

I personally think we are a pawns in a cosmic chess game between two deities each fighting for the right to rule the universe. Yeah, I am dead serious.

Lisa

One deity wanting mankind to have knowledge, the other wanting mankind in ignorance?:evil:

Again - is not this a bit on the fanciful side?

David

Maybe the Book of Job is the truest book in the whole Bible. That is what scares the shit out of me.

Lisa


You're right. That story is scary AND infuriating. Nobody comes out of it smelling like roses.

[Lisa0315]

Damn it! Okay, I am fanciful, poetic, and stuff. I am a writer afterall. Not for a living, but yeah, always have wrote stuff.

Lisa

:evil: A thousand pardons, I am about to be revolting ... but blame it on Matty, who woke up my Grammar Nazi :D

I ... always have wrote written stuff.

*snicker*

Believe it or not, when I am trying, I can write with perfect grammar. However, being from the South, it is pretty easy for me to fall back into the way I talk rather than the way I have been trained.

Lisa

[Lisa0315]

One deity wanting mankind to have knowledge, the other wanting mankind in ignorance?:evil:

Again - is not this a bit on the fanciful side?

David

Maybe the Book of Job is the truest book in the whole Bible. That is what scares the shit out of me.

Lisa



You're right. That story is scary AND infuriating. Nobody comes out of it smelling like roses.

The worst part is that God gets it started. "Have you considered my servant Job?" It is a dare, a super double fucking dare.

Lisa

[maddog]

Maybe the Book of Job is the truest book in the whole Bible. That is what scares the shit out of me.

Lisa



You're right. That story is scary AND infuriating. Nobody comes out of it smelling like roses.

The worst part is that God gets it started. "Have you considered my servant Job?" It is a dare, a super double fucking dare.

Lisa

God's character suffers quite a bit in that story. If knowledge of God was based only on that story, I'd have enough information to make the judgment that "God is bad."

[Matty]

Nit pick, didnt you mean comprehend Maddog?


apprehend = perceive
comprehend = understand

I used the word I intended to use, according what I understood it to mean; thanks, though Matty :)

fair enough, just checking
i never saw apprehend used in an "perceive" context before so consider me educated:D

[His Noodly Appendage]

No, hon, this goes into the doctrine of grace. It is a non-interference clause for a period of time. Prior to the age of grace, we had the Old Testament, the wrathful God who judged nations and destroyed them. After Christ though, God waits on judgment as an act of mercy if you will. So, God does not punish evil right now, nor does He hold back those who claim to follow Him and commit attrocities in His name.

Those who preach that God is punishing America for this or that are dead wrong. Right now, it rains on the good and the evil. Disasters happen to all of us. Blessings happen to all of us. There is no distinguishment from the two. God is sitting back and waiting. He waits to judge with the hope that some will "get it right". A few do. A few. Those few, apparantly, are worth the many who don't.

When God does judge the world, then, yeah, evil will end, and hypocrites will be called out. My uncle (the pastor) has a saying that I admire very much. He says, "I would rather go to church with hypocrites than go to hell with them."

There are always going to be weeds growing up among the flowers. The flowers need to be so strong in beauty that they grow despite the weeds trying to choke them out.

Lisa

Well that's a bit fucking hypocritical of him, isn't it?

I mean, he hovers minutely, noting down every stray wisp of thought that doesn't meet his impossible requirements, so he can punish people for them, but he won't lift a finger to help anyone?

Seriously, what kind of parent is that?

[SallyAnne]

One could reconcile the two by claiming that the only good Jews are "Jews for Jesus".
But no-one is good. The "Jews for Jesus" have been given the gift of faith and the ones in Jerusalem are trying to reach other Jews with the Gospel which is difficult because they're techincally forbidden to preach. And Christians should be helping in reaching the Jews but because of historical persecution and animosity there is (understandably) suspicion and fear on behalf of the Jews. Shira Sorko-Ram tries to educate Christians on understanding the Messianic Jewish Ministry, and when I raised some of the concerns with other Christians over at CF, I got accused of watering down the Gospel by a hardcore calvinist who seemed to take a Lutheran approach to Judaism. But he didn't understand where I was coming from and started viewing me with suspicion just because I said Yeshua ha Maschiac. So nothing is straight forward or simple when thinking about the Jews and how Christians can approach ministry with them.....But Romans 11 seems straight forward in that they are the natural and beloved of God for the sake of their forefathers, so that doesn't lead me to believe that there can be any Christian justification for persecution.


But SallyAnne, I notice that you've been defending the nastier parts of the Bible as describing well-deserved punishments for various sins.


Not really, I just don't feel quite as embarrassed about it as other Christians do because they happen to believe everything that atheists tell them and listen to the arguments as they are framed by atheists. They think they are coming to these conclusions themselves, but they've been swallowing what atheists tell them, hook, line and sinker. All these arguments that atheists today use, come mainly from the freethinking and secular movements of the Victorian Age. The arguments about "atrocities" from the OT were designed to separate church and state. It was a political struggle. So the morality arguments were designed to undermine the established church and remove its power because people wanted civil liberties and not be bound to the official church which they regarded as corrupt. It was politically motivated but the arguments have remained even though church and state is now separated and atheists have their civil liberties. And when atheists and embarrassed Christians keep buying into that Victorian mindset even though we've moved on from it a couple of centuries, it seems like an old argument being used in a modern era.



But if one holds such a view, and one also believes that Jews other than "Jews for Jesus" are nasty Christ-killers, might one conclude that Jews deserve to be persecuted?



No, I don't think so. Christians live under the New Covenant. What happened under the Old Covenant isn't an instruction manual of justification for Christians to persecute Jews (or anyone else) today.

[Matty]

And when atheists and embarrassed Christians keep buying into that Victorian mindset even though we've moved on from it a couple of centuries, it seems like an old argument being used in a modern era. I cant help but laugh at someone knocking "victorian thinking" who buys into 2000yr mythology (even longer if you count the other religions Xtianity stole its stories from of course) as a guide to modern life. Thats pretty damn funny.

[SallyAnne]

And when atheists and embarrassed Christians keep buying into that Victorian mindset even though we've moved on from it a couple of centuries, it seems like an old argument being used in a modern era. I cant help but laugh at someone knocking "victorian thinking" who buys into 2000yr mythology (even longer if you count the other religions Xtianity stole its stories from of course) as a guide to modern life. Thats pretty damn funny.


It's not that funny, because we don't claim that we believe something new, quite the contrary, we believe the truth about God has always been the truth and hasn't changed. But I expect atheists to have moved on from those old political arguments now that they have what they agitated for because otherwise it's like modern western women still arguing for the vote.

[Matty]

I'd call it shifting the goalposts wth a dose of no true scotsman but whatever.

thats a pretty good question in the circumstances, how do you explain the fact that so many pagan religions and sects had to close for coincidence comparable stories, including the more interesting aspects of jesus supposed life, centuries before Xtianity miraculously claimed them as their own?

we believe the truth about God has always been the truth and hasn't changed.but the interpretation of his teachings sure has changed through the ages, hasnt it? Nowadays is weak sauce compared to the older versions no? Whos right?

So why IS there suffering again? I dont remember that one being answered.

[Lisa0315]

Honestly, I just read wikipedia about Zoestrianism (sp???), and the first tenant is that the Creator is the beginning and the end. That nearly floored me considering it was written at least 100 years before Christ, and some believe more like 500 years before Christ. This is an Iranian/Indian religion. It speaks to the idea that God did reveal Himself to other peoples besides the Jews.

Lisa

[Garnet]

It can also speak to the idea that later religions took up the theme. No divine intervention required.

[David B]

Honestly, I just read wikipedia about Zoestrianism (sp???), and the first tenant is that the Creator is the beginning and the end. That nearly floored me considering it was written at least 100 years before Christ, and some believe more like 500 years before Christ. This is an Iranian/Indian religion. It speaks to the idea that God did reveal Himself to other peoples besides the Jews.

Lisa

Or perhaps it speaks to the idea that there was a lot of cultural transfer between people way back in time, when people tended to invoke the supernatural to explain things like volcanoes, earthquakes, victories and/or defeats in war and stuff.

What is the evidence for the existence of any God?

David

[VoxRat]

Maybe the Book of Job is the truest book in the whole Bible. That is what scares the shit out of me.

Lisa



You're right. That story is scary AND infuriating. Nobody comes out of it smelling like roses.

The worst part is that God gets it started. "Have you considered my servant Job?" It is a dare, a super double fucking dare.

Lisa
Ehh... I forgive the nonexistent God. Knowing, as I do, it's just a story.

[tjakey]

If we are going to go with bat shit crazy bible stories for 1000 Alex, I'll put in Judges chapter 11. A man offering up his virgin (why is that important?) daughter as a burnt offering for being allowed to butcher his enemies...now you're talking some medieval nasty. I wonder, did he cut her throat first and then burn the body, like they did with goats? Or did he just light her up? Did he do it himself, or did he get a priest to murder his daughter for him? Anyway, it made god happy. Go god...

[Anne]

Postulating the existence of the divine, however, is fun.

Lisa, I take it you never heard of them before? I recommend reading up on it. It is a very old and strong religion. And you may see God's revelation in it, or you may see plagiarism by humans. Either way, you win.

You may also want to read up on the Baha'i. (http://www.bahai.org/)

Throughout history, God has revealed Himself to humanity through a series of divine Messengers, whose teachings guide and educate us and provide the basis for the advancement of human society. These Messengers have included Abraham, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Buddha, Jesus, and Muhammad. Their religions come from the same Source and are in essence successive chapters of one religion from God.

Bahá’u’lláh, the latest of these Messengers, brought new spiritual and social teachings for our time. His essential message is of unity. He taught the oneness of God, the oneness of the human family, and the oneness of religion.

Perhaps that feels like truth to you?

I remember a couple of proselytizers who came to our door once. I told them I was happy in my faith and saw no reason to change. The woman asked if I were Baha'i, because the only people she had met that happy and at peace were Baha'i.

I wondered why she were Christian, if that were true.

[Anne]

If we are going to go with bat shit crazy bible stories for 1000 Alex, I'll put in Judges chapter 11. A man offering up his virgin (why is that important?) daughter as a burnt offering for being allowed to butcher his enemies...now you're talking some medieval nasty. I wonder, did he cut her throat first and then burn the body, like they did with goats? Or did he just light her up? Did he do it himself, or did he get a priest to murder his daughter for him? Anyway, it made god happy. Go god...

I see you 11 and raise you 19.

22Now as they were making their hearts merry, behold, the men of the city, certain sons of Belial, beset the house round about, and beat at the door, and spake to the master of the house, the old man, saying, Bring forth the man that came into thine house, that we may know him.

23And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

24Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

25But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

26Then came the woman in the dawning of the day, and fell down at the door of the man's house where her lord was, till it was light.

27And her lord rose up in the morning, and opened the doors of the house, and went out to go his way: and, behold, the woman his concubine was fallen down at the door of the house, and her hands were upon the threshold.

28And he said unto her, Up, and let us be going. But none answered. Then the man took her up upon an ass, and the man rose up, and gat him unto his place.

29And when he was come into his house, he took a knife, and laid hold on his concubine, and divided her, together with her bones, into twelve pieces, and sent her into all the coasts of Israel.

30And it was so, that all that saw it said, There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt unto this day: consider of it, take advice, and speak your minds.

[Matty]

yeah thats the one i alluded to earlier, i couldnt remember the details though, thought it was Lot. Thanks. it is now properly logged for future wtf purposes :)

[Matty]

It speaks to the idea that God did reveal Himself to other peoples besides the Jews. That is a weird interpretation if you ask me. I think occams razor opts for Garnet and Davids explanation. that such older religious tales were incorporated into the story anthology of the fledgling Xtianity to make it more palatable to the people they were trying to convert, familiar folk tales making the other bullshit easier to swallow and all that. "just a spoonful of sugar......" :)

There is also the comparison of the stories of Jesus and Horus which they did in some depth on Religulous. the same stuff as mentioned here.

xH66MsrmE50&feature=related
i leave it to the scholars to affirm the truth or not of that, but i imagine Mahers researchers were fairly on the ball.

Lets face it Xtianity aint original.

[lpetrich]

One could reconcile the two by claiming that the only good Jews are "Jews for Jesus".
But no-one is good.
So you believe that you are an evil monster?

(stuff on "Jews for Jesus"...)

A fake, pure and simple.


But SallyAnne, I notice that you've been defending the nastier parts of the Bible as describing well-deserved punishments for various sins.
Not really, I just don't feel quite as embarrassed about it as other Christians do because they happen to believe everything that atheists tell them and listen to the arguments as they are framed by atheists. They think they are coming to these conclusions themselves, but they've been swallowing what atheists tell them, hook, line and sinker.
You don't feel embarrassed by the parts of the Bible that command and celebrate genocide? Shall I quote Deut. 7:1-5 again?

And don't you feel embarrassed at Biblical sexism? Like:

1 Corinthians 11: God > Christ > men > women and how women were created from men and exist for the sake of men.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Women should shut up about religion and let their husbands instruct them.

Ephesians 5:22-24: Wives should submit to their husbands as if their husbands are Jesus Christ himself.

1 Timothy 2:11-12: Women should learn in silence and not teach or have authority over men.

There's more in what the Skeptics' Annotated Bible lists (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html), and in some of the stuff that Don Morgan has collected about the Bible (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/).

All these arguments that atheists today use, come mainly from the freethinking and secular movements of the Victorian Age.
How did you figure that out?
The arguments about "atrocities" from the OT were designed to separate church and state. It was a political struggle.
How was that supposed to be the case? And how would it affect the validity of the arguments?
So the morality arguments were designed to undermine the established church and remove its power because people wanted civil liberties and not be bound to the official church which they regarded as corrupt. It was politically motivated but the arguments have remained even though church and state is now separated and atheists have their civil liberties.
Again, how was that supposed to be the case?
And when atheists and embarrassed Christians keep buying into that Victorian mindset even though we've moved on from it a couple of centuries, it seems like an old argument being used in a modern era.
How have we "moved on" from such arguments? Have we now "discovered" that Biblical genocide is something to be proud of? Biblical sexism? Etc.


But if one holds such a view, and one also believes that Jews other than "Jews for Jesus" are nasty Christ-killers, might one conclude that Jews deserve to be persecuted?
No, I don't think so. Christians live under the New Covenant. What happened under the Old Covenant isn't an instruction manual of justification for Christians to persecute Jews (or anyone else) today.
Where does it say "Don't be too nasty to the Jews, even though they are Christ-killers"?

[DMB]

I just have to add here that the Islamic hell is described with great relish and loving detail in the Koran. So Christians aren't the only ones who think that the creator of the universe likes that sort of thing.

[Barbarian]

Punishment is not necessary when one can reprogram. Lisa0315, I am a creator and designer of software, and whenever it misbehaves, I rewrite it to try to keep it from misbehaving.

If I can do more than an allegedly omnipotent being is supposedly willing to, then that's really saying something.

I don't think you or anyone else has enough information to make that judgement.

LisaBumping this for great justice.

When we say that we cannot judge the reasons of another person acting in a certain way, we mean that we know that the person in question has to contend with the obstacles placed in front of him by the way the world works, and we don't see all those obstacles from his perspective; maybe they are sufficient reason for his actions. But this approach can only be applied to limited humans exactly because of their constraints; it does not apply if by definition there are no such constraints, as is the case with a god who allegedly created the entire universe. We indeed don't have the information you claim we lack, but that is because, according to Abrahamic metaphysics, such information simply cannot exist; it would have to refer to things not created by Yahweh.

This is a recurring theme in Internet discussion forum apologetics (which is pretty much the only kind of apologetic I ever come across). If a god is omnipotent and the creator of everything else apart from himself, then everything is the way he capriciously wanted it; 'capriciously' because he could not have constraining considerations to choose one way over the other. There goes god's plan: we need plans because we need to navigate the labirinth of physical and other constraints, but there is no such obstacle for an omnipotent god. There goes god's will; we don't have the experience of willing until we run into an obstacle, otherwise we just take the thing; no such diffficulty for an omnipotent god.

Lots of Christian apologetic is based on this sort of ignoring the omnipotent-creator-of-everything part and trying to excuse an omnipotent god by claiming that limited humans would be forced to do the same (punish sinners etc.). One escape route would strip Yahweh from the role of creator of everything, having him work with material that has always co-existed with him, claiming he only gave form, substance and soul to the pre-existing material substrate (so in the beginning of the Biblical creation event the Earth was void, but it was there before Genesis 1:1). This explanation brings back the 'who created God?' issue with a vengeance, because it posits an even less powerful God than the one it replaces. Another possible explanation could be that said god was made up by and modeled on limited humans.

[Norrin Radd]

One could reconcile the two by claiming that the only good Jews are "Jews for Jesus".
But no-one is good.
So you believe that you are an evil monster?

So... You're of the view that "not good" and "evil monster" are equivalent... and you complain that the verbiage of the Bible doesn't make sense? :rolleyes:





(stuff on "Jews for Jesus"...)

A fake, pure and simple.


You don't feel embarrassed by the parts of the Bible that command and celebrate genocide? Shall I quote Deut. 7:1-5 again?

I don't. I'm one of those folks who embrace the "evangelical doubletalk" and "bullshit."




And don't you feel embarrassed at Biblical sexism?

No. I'd be much more embarrassed if I caved to popular opinion rather at the expense of God's word.

Having said that, I believe you are misinterpreting the texts you cite.



Like:

1 Corinthians 11: God > Christ > men > women and how women were created from men and exist for the sake of men.

If you actually read it, it's a lot more balanced than you imply:

A man should not cover his head, because he exists as God's image and glory. But the woman is man's glory. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why a woman should have authority over her own head: because of the angels. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man of woman. For as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But everything comes from God.
(1Co 11:7-12, ISV)


1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Women should shut up about religion and let their husbands instruct them.

In a context where interactive, socratic-style teaching was common (as with Jesus at the Temple in Luke 2), and where women were generally much less educated than men, yet were probably trying to participate as peers, causing chaos.



Ephesians 5:22-24: Wives should submit to their husbands as if their husbands are Jesus Christ himself.

In a context where in the verses you cited, the verb, "submit" does not actually occur, but in fact is "borrowed" from v. 21, where the submission is MUTUAL, and where the man is commanded to love his wife AS CHRIST SELF-SACRIFICINGLY LOVED THE CHURCH. Too bad you accidentally missed those two key verses that frame the bit you quoted.



1 Timothy 2:11-12: Women should learn in silence and not teach or have authority over men.

In a context (Ephesus) rife with Artemis worship (Acts 19), a female-priority cult that some of the women were probably "evangelizing" door-to-door (5:13), and where a better translation might be something like,

"Let a woman learn quietly (note: Same word as in 2:2) and with full submission. For I am allowing, for now (implied by the participial construction), no woman to teach a man in a domineering way; she is to be quiet (again, same word as in 2:2)."



There's more in what the Skeptics' Annotated Bible lists (http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html), and in some of the stuff that Don Morgan has collected about the Bible (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/).

I'm sure there is. Skeptics and Infidels love that sort of crap. They love to take the stereotypical fundy hyperliteralist approach and wave it like a war-club, then they usually have a four-alarm shit-fit about alleged double-talk and hand-waving if someone actually tries to explain the material to them.



...

But if one holds such a view, and one also believes that Jews other than "Jews for Jesus" are nasty Christ-killers, might one conclude that Jews deserve to be persecuted?
No, I don't think so. Christians live under the New Covenant. What happened under the Old Covenant isn't an instruction manual of justification for Christians to persecute Jews (or anyone else) today.
Where does it say "Don't be too nasty to the Jews, even though they are Christ-killers"?

It doesn't say not to be "nasty" to Jews, or anyone. In fact Jesus got in the faces of some of His fellow Jews and told them that unless they believed Him to be "I AM," they would die in their sins. Paul pronounced anathema on supposed believers who were trying to impose legalistic Judaizing standards. But we don't *impose* our views by force. "The weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh..." -- 2 Cor. 10:4

[lpetrich]

But no-one is good.
So you believe that you are an evil monster?
So... You're of the view that "not good" and "evil monster" are equivalent... and you complain that the verbiage of the Bible doesn't make sense? :rolleyes:
The doctrine of Original Sin implies that we are all evil monsters.
You don't feel embarrassed by the parts of the Bible that command and celebrate genocide? Shall I quote Deut. 7:1-5 again?
I don't. I'm one of those folks who embrace the "evangelical doubletalk" and "bullshit."
You don't feel one bit embarrassed about the Final Solution of the Canaanite Question in the early Old Testament? Like this:
When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations—the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you—and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. (Deut. 7:1-5, NIV)
No. I'd be much more embarrassed if I caved to popular opinion rather at the expense of God's word.
You'd rather defend genocide than "cave to popular opinion"???

Yes, this is not only killing all the leaders or all the men of military age, but also killing all the old men and women and children and babies. Yes, babies.

Having said that, I believe you are misinterpreting the texts you cite.

If you actually read it, it's a lot more balanced than you imply:

A man should not cover his head, because he exists as God's image and glory. But the woman is man's glory. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; and man was not created for woman, but woman for man. This is why a woman should have authority over her own head: because of the angels. In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man of woman. For as woman came from man, so man comes through woman. But everything comes from God.
(1Co 11:7-12, ISV)
Norrin Radd, don't make me laugh. That states that the female sex comes from the male one and was created for the sake of the male one. You have also omitted 1 Cor 11:3-6:
Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
1 Cor 11:3 clearly states the hierarchy
God > Christ > man > woman

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: Women should shut up about religion and let their husbands instruct them.
In a context where interactive, socratic-style teaching was common (as with Jesus at the Temple in Luke 2), and where women were generally much less educated than men, yet were probably trying to participate as peers, causing chaos.
Norrin Radd, were you there? Did you go back in a time machine and take some video of these supposedly troublesome women? This seems like a farfetched Just So Story.

Ephesians 5:22-24: Wives should submit to their husbands as if their husbands are Jesus Christ himself.
In a context where in the verses you cited, the verb, "submit" does not actually occur, but in fact is "borrowed" from v. 21, where the submission is MUTUAL, and where the man is commanded to love his wife AS CHRIST SELF-SACRIFICINGLY LOVED THE CHURCH. Too bad you accidentally missed those two key verses that frame the bit you quoted.
Still a troublesome asymmetry -- it does not state that husbands must make the same sort of submission to their wives.

1 Timothy 2:11-12: Women should learn in silence and not teach or have authority over men.
In a context (Ephesus) rife with Artemis worship (Acts 19), a female-priority cult that some of the women were probably "evangelizing" door-to-door (5:13), and where a better translation might be something like,

"Let a woman learn quietly (note: Same word as in 2:2) and with full submission. For I am allowing, for now (implied by the participial construction), no woman to teach a man in a domineering way; she is to be quiet (again, same word as in 2:2)."
That's an incorrect translation. Let me explain some linguistic background. English has two present tenses, an indefinite present for some general circumstance :
I visit the Secular Café
and a definite present for some specific event:
I am visiting the Secular Café
New Testament Greek, like many other languages, had only one present tense, which is translated as either the definite or the indefinite present in modern-English Bibles, depending on the context. King James English apparently had only one present tense, with the form of the present-day indefinite present. You can see that in Matthew 8:2 and 10:16, where modern-English versions use the definite present and the King James Version has what looks like an indefinite present.

So I checked some modern-English translations of 1 Tim 2:11, and they all use the indefinite present, not the definite present. I believe that to be the most reasonable choice of tense, since 1 Tim's author was describing some general circumstance without anything to indicate anything specific.

Also, did the early Xian leaders really cringe in fear of a takeover by Artemis worshippers? Especially given how Paul had denied Artemis.

The Skeptics' Annotated Bible and Don Morgan's stuff...
I'm sure there is. Skeptics and Infidels love that sort of crap. They love to take the stereotypical fundy hyperliteralist approach and wave it like a war-club, then they usually have a four-alarm shit-fit about alleged double-talk and hand-waving if someone actually tries to explain the material to them.
If you want to rewrite the Bible and claim that it does not really mean what it says, go ahead. But don't expect us to applaud.

And I challenge you to "demonstrate" that Jesus Christ had been the Son of God only in a metaphorical, adoptive sense, that the Virgin Birth never happened, that Joseph had been his biological father, and that Joseph and Mary had conceived Jesus Christ in the traditional way. Given the ingenuity of your other nonliteral interpretations, I'm sure that you can do it.

Or do you insist on a "stereotypical fundy hyperliteralist" approach to that?

[tjakey]

I believe lpetrich has thrown bat shit crazy bible story #3 into the mix. The contenders so far...

1) dry roasted daughter (torture, murder and human sacrifice - always popular)
2) pimped, gang raped, murdered and dismembered concubine (you can never go wrong with gang sex)
3) genocide down to the very last breathing baby (This, mind you, for an invading army annexing land others had lived on for generations.)

all, (of course) to the glory of god...

We haven't touched on slavery yet. Anyone got a good moral slavery story from ye old holy book? Right off hand the only one I can think of is Paul sending an escaped slave back to his owner with (nice of Paul) a recommendation letter. (Kind of weenie, no blood or sex, but in the N.T.)

[Anne]

I just have to add here that the Islamic hell is described with great relish and loving detail in the Koran. So Christians aren't the only ones who think that the creator of the universe likes that sort of thing.

it's the same god, though.

IIRC, Yahweh is the mutation of a desert war/blood god of the nomadic pre jews. A deity who gets off on blood shed, like Sekmet.

IMO, if he exists as this, he must be in heaven--- managing to convince his followers to kill his followers for centuries. Smart guy.

[Lisa0315]

Yes, Jesus and OT God are one and the same. We know this because prophecy shows Jesus returning. The hem of his robes are to be covered in blood as the streets will be flowing red.

Lisa

[Anne]

I was talking about Allah and Yahweh.

Although, chapter and verse of that lovely image would be nice.

Blood god, ftw.

No offense, but if those things were in a pagan tome, I'm pretty sure you'd (generic, not Lisa) vomit.

[Lisa0315]

I was talking about Allah and Yahweh.

Although, chapter and verse of that lovely image would be nice.

Blood god, ftw.

Let me see if I can find it.

[Lisa0315]

Isaiah 63:1-6 1 Who is this that cometh from Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious F272 (http://classicbst.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=isa+63:3&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1#F272) in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty to save. 2 Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat? 3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. 4 For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the year of my redeemed is come. 5 And I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered that there was none to uphold: therefore mine own arm brought salvation unto me; and my fury, it upheld me. 6 And I will tread down the people in mine anger, and make them drunk in my fury, and I will bring down their strength to the earth.

[Lisa0315]

Ezekiel 32:1-16 1 And it came to pass in the twelfth year, in the twelfth month, in the first day of the month, that the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, take up a lamentation for Pharaoh king of Egypt, and say unto him, Thou art like a young lion of the nations, and thou art as a whale F153 (http://classicbst.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=eze+32:6&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1#F153) in the seas: and thou camest forth with thy rivers, and troubledst the waters with thy feet, and fouledst their rivers. 3 Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will therefore spread out my net over thee with a company of many people; and they shall bring thee up in my net. 4 Then will I leave thee upon the land, I will cast thee forth upon the open field, and will cause all the fowls of the heaven to remain upon thee, and I will fill the beasts of the whole earth with thee. 5 And I will lay thy flesh upon the mountains, and fill the valleys with thy height. 6 I will also water with thy blood the land wherein thou swimmest, even to the mountains; and the rivers shall be full of thee. 7 And when I shall put thee out, I will cover the heaven, and make the stars thereof dark; I will cover the sun with a cloud, and the moon shall not give her light. 8 All the bright F154 (http://classicbst.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=eze+32:6&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1#F154) lights of heaven will I make dark over thee, and set darkness upon thy land, saith the Lord GOD. 9 I will also vex F155 (http://classicbst.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=eze+32:6&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1#F155) the hearts of many people, when I shall bring thy destruction among the nations, into the countries which thou hast not known. 10 Yea, I will make many people amazed at thee, and their kings shall be horribly afraid for thee, when I shall brandish my sword before them; and they shall tremble at every moment, every man for his own life, in the day of thy fall. 11 For thus saith the Lord GOD; The sword of the king of Babylon shall come upon thee. 12 By the swords of the mighty will I cause thy multitude to fall, the terrible of the nations, all of them: and they shall spoil the pomp of Egypt, and all the multitude thereof shall be destroyed. 13 I will destroy also all the beasts thereof from beside the great waters; neither shall the foot of man trouble them any more, nor the hoofs of beasts trouble them. 14 Then will I make their waters deep, and cause their rivers to run like oil, saith the Lord GOD. 15 When I shall make the land of Egypt desolate, and the country shall be destitute F156 (http://classicbst.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=eze+32:6&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1#F156) of that whereof it was full, when I shall smite all them that dwell therein, then shall they know that I am the LORD. 16 This is the lamentation wherewith they shall lament her: the daughters of the nations shall lament her: they shall lament for her, even for Egypt, and for all her multitude, saith the Lord GOD.

[Anne]

Thank you.

[Lisa0315]

Ezekiel 28:20-26 20 Again the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 21 Son of man, set thy face against Zidon, and prophesy against it, 22 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Zidon; and I will be glorified in the midst of thee: and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall have executed judgments in her, and shall be sanctified in her. 23 For I will send into her pestilence, and blood into her streets; and the wounded shall be judged in the midst of her by the sword upon her on every side; and they shall know that I am the LORD. 24 And there shall be no more a pricking brier unto the house of Israel, nor any grieving thorn of all that are round about them, that despised them; and they shall know that I am the Lord GOD. 25 Thus saith the Lord GOD; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob. 26 And they shall dwell safely F138 (http://classicbst.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi?passage=eze+28:23&version=kjv&context=1&showtools=1#F138) therein, and shall build houses, and plant vineyards; yea, they shall dwell with confidence, when I have executed judgments upon all those that despise them round about them; and they shall know that I am the LORD their God.

[Garnet]

This is probably a derail but I've got to say it. If the same kind of story was posted in a Christian forum and merely altered so that it was representative of another religion, the Christians would be howling about how violent and bloody and evil it is.

It was someone pulling that trick on me about the sacrifice of Jesus that opened my eyes to the base and primitive nature of Christianity and the emphasis on the slaughter of an innocent.

[Lisa0315]

This is probably a derail but I've got to say it. If the same kind of story was posted in a Christian forum and merely altered so that it was representative of another religion, the Christians would be howling about how violent and bloody and evil it is.

It was someone pulling that trick on me about the sacrifice of Jesus that opened my eyes to the base and primitive nature of Christianity and the emphasis on the slaughter of an innocent.

Yeah, it is one aspect that a Christian either has to accept or they might as well forget all of it. Like Moriah once said, "God is ferral", or like C.S. Lewis, "He is not a tame lion."

Lisa

[Anne]

This is probably a derail but I've got to say it. If the same kind of story was posted in a Christian forum and merely altered so that it was representative of another religion, the Christians would be howling about how violent and bloody and evil it is.

It was someone pulling that trick on me about the sacrifice of Jesus that opened my eyes to the base and primitive nature of Christianity and the emphasis on the slaughter of an innocent.

Lady, you and I are on the same page.

I was talking about Allah and Yahweh.

Although, chapter and verse of that lovely image would be nice.

Blood god, ftw.

No offense, but if those things were in a pagan tome, I'm pretty sure you'd (generic, not Lisa) vomit.

[Anne]

This is probably a derail but I've got to say it. If the same kind of story was posted in a Christian forum and merely altered so that it was representative of another religion, the Christians would be howling about how violent and bloody and evil it is.

It was someone pulling that trick on me about the sacrifice of Jesus that opened my eyes to the base and primitive nature of Christianity and the emphasis on the slaughter of an innocent.

Yeah, it is one aspect that a Christian either has to accept or they might as well forget all of it. Like Moriah once said, "God is ferral", or like C.S. Lewis, "He is not a tame lion."

Lisa


Strange, when I was Catholic, that wasn't my god.

That wasn't why I left.

[tjakey]

When I was a fundie, that was my god...and that's why I (eventually) left. That fact is, if the Christian god actually did exist as portrayed in the bible, good people would have to oppose it even if that meant spending an eternity in hell.

The real "Good News" is that the god is make believe.

[DMB]

I know most of you won't understand French, but if you have a quick skim through the film I linked to here (http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=1447), you'll see that every time an Iranian delegate starts to speak, they always commence with "In the name of Allah, the most merciful". This is, of course, a standard Muslim formula, but I always think it is extremely ironic, given how nasty and bloodthirsty portrait of Allah conveyed in the Koran. Perhaps the basic idea is that if you repeatedly tell a god how merciful, loving, etc. he is, then he won't kick the shit out of you.

And if you are a representative of the Iranian state, you know, of course, that merciful Allah wants you to hang homosexuals, stone women and persecute Bah'ais.

[DrLight]

And leave us not forger that God is Love - except if you happen to love someone of the same sex that is.

One thing does confuse me though the "Omnibenevolent" tag, I was taught that he was Omnipresent, Omniscient and Omnipotent, benevolence was not one of His traits.

Mind you, I am talking about a mix of very strict protestantism and fundy-ish evangelicalism a couple of decades agao.

[Lisa0315]

A lot of the problem, I think, is that human language is inadequate to describe God. Our definition of good may not be God's definition. Evil may not be defined the same. I don't know. I am just offering a solution.

Lisa

[Anne]

And I would wonder why God would do that.

Why confuse us?

[Lisa0315]

And I would wonder why God would do that.

Why confuse us?

Not sure God did. I think man did. Circular, I realize, but Scripture says taht God is not the author of confusion.

I think God is all about the blood and gore just as the OT portrays Him, and just as the NT portrays Him. I just think blood and gore have different values to Him than for us. It is the whole difference in the way we see death compared to how God sees death.

Lisa

[sohy]

I used to give Bible believing Xians the benefit of the doubt by assuming they didn't really know that much about what parts of the Bible said. Now I find some of you defending the horrific actions of the fictional OT god. I don't know what to think, but it honestly saddens me. I don't understand how you deal with the cognitive dissonance. How exactly do you do it? I know I couldn't.

[Lisa0315]

I used to give Bible believing Xians the benefit of the doubt by assuming they didn't really know that much about what parts of the Bible said. Now I find some of you defending the horrific actions of the fictional OT god. I don't know what to think, but it honestly saddens me. I don't understand how you deal with the cognitive dissonance. How exactly do you do it? I know I couldn't.

I am not defending it. I am just being honest about what it says. Also, do not ever think that Bible literalists do not know exactly what Scripture says, and how much carnage it contains.

Lisa

[maddog]

A lot of the problem, I think, is that human language is inadequate to describe God. Our definition of good may not be God's definition. Evil may not be defined the same. I don't know. I am just offering a solution.

Lisa
The ONLY definition of "good" that human beings can know about or use is the human being definition of "good." If human language is inadequate to describe God, and human understanding insufficient to understand God, and human perception incapable of perceiving God, then how in the world can any human being say anything about God?

The "Bible" -- which is not one book but many different books -- is composed of nothing else other than human language. If human language is inadequate, then the human-language-books do not properly convey knowledge or understanding of God.

Once again, if human understanding of what is "good" is all that we human beings have, then in order to say that "God is good" we must necessarily use the human definition. We don't have access to anything else. If "God is good" doesn't work under the human definition of "good," then human beings have no basis whatsoever to say that "God is good." If "good" means something other than what the human understanding of the word "good" is, then to say that "God is good" has just taken all possible human meaning out of the statement. It means nothing coherent, and is an impossible statement for an honest or truthful human being to make.

[Anne]

And I would wonder why God would do that.

Why confuse us?

Not sure God did. I think man did. Circular, I realize, but Scripture says taht God is not the author of confusion.

I think God is all about the blood and gore just as the OT portrays Him, and just as the NT portrays Him. I just think blood and gore have different values to Him than for us. It is the whole difference in the way we see death compared to how God sees death.

Lisa

then why worship a god who would as likely crush you as help you?

More likely, actually...

To address the first--- Babel? That was god deliberately confusing us, right?

[maddog]

I used to give Bible believing Xians the benefit of the doubt by assuming they didn't really know that much about what parts of the Bible said. Now I find some of you defending the horrific actions of the fictional OT god. I don't know what to think, but it honestly saddens me. I don't understand how you deal with the cognitive dissonance. How exactly do you do it? I know I couldn't.

I am not defending it. I am just being honest about what it says. Also, do not ever think that Bible literalists do not know exactly what Scripture says, and how much carnage it contains.

Lisa

The problem is not that they do not understand. It is that, KNOWING how horrific and bloody it is, they still call it "good," all the while knowing that it cannot be "good" by any human definition of the word "good." They rob the word "good" of all meaning -- at least any meaning that is actually accessible to a human being, as we are wholly without any other.

[Lisa0315]

A lot of the problem, I think, is that human language is inadequate to describe God. Our definition of good may not be God's definition. Evil may not be defined the same. I don't know. I am just offering a solution.

Lisa
The ONLY definition of "good" that human beings can know about or use is the human being definition of "good." If human language is inadequate to describe God, and human understanding insufficient to understand God, and human perception incapable of perceiving God, then how in the world can any human being say anything about God?

The "Bible" -- which is not one book but many different books -- is composed of nothing else other than human language. If human language is inadequate, then the human-language-books do not properly convey knowledge or understanding of God.

Once again, if human understanding of what is "good" is all that we human beings have, then in order to say that "God is good" we must necessarily use the human definition. We don't have access to anything else. If "God is good" doesn't work under the human definition of "good," then human beings have no basis whatsoever to say that "God is good." If "good" means something other than what the human understanding of the word "good" is, then to say that "God is good" has just taken all possible human meaning out of the statement. It means nothing coherent, and is an impossible statement for an honest or truthful human being to make.

I am not saying God is good. I am not sure that even God made that claim actually. He called His creation good. Did He ever call Himself good or is that something that man has attributed to Him? I honestly cannot think of anywhere in Scripture where God says He is good. More like He says, "Who do you think you are questioning ME?"

I personally see God as a warrior-god who hates what His creation became to the point that He nearly wiped us out at one point. Then, He went to plan B which was to salvage as much of His creation as possible.

...Or, He is like I said earlier...playing a game of cosmic chess and we are nothing but pawns.

As an aside, I have come to see how many of my posts contradict one another. The reason is because I am kind of in the middle of figuring things out and have been for quite some time. I have fundie indoctrination and my immediate reaction will always be from the fundie point of view. Then, I find myself disagreeing with myself as in I don't believe that the fundie pov is the correct one.

Lisa

[Anne]

Why choose this path, Lisa?

[Lisa0315]

Why choose this path, Lisa?

I don't feel like I am choosing anything, Anne. Do you choose to believe anything? Do atheists choose to not believe?

Lisa

[maddog]

I am not saying God is good. I am not sure that even God made that claim actually. He called His creation good. Did He ever call Himself good or is that something that man has attributed to Him? I honestly cannot think of anywhere in Scripture where God says He is good. More like He says, "Who do you think you are questioning ME?"

If God is NOT good, or if human beings cannot KNOW whether or not God is good, then there is no reason whatsoever to worship, honor, revere, serve, or give the time of day to this God. As to "Who do you think you are, questioning ME?" -- that lays bare the actual basis of (some brands of) the Abrahamic religions: that "might makes right." God is then nothing but a cosmic bully. According to my values, bullying is wrong, bad, and cruel. I oppose bullying, wrongdoing, bad behavior and cruelty.