DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: kimba1 on April 01, 2016, 03:38:06 PM
-
Lately i have been talking about religion to a very old friend who is very largely anti-religious. The mere mention of it upsets him. I notice this way of thinking is happening alot. I'm a radical baptist as such I'm the very last person who can defend my faith. But these folks are quite irrational in thier anti-religion rant.
I want to know is this trend noticeable to you. I not really concern since thier arguements are just so extreme that atheism has been called a religion now.,they have become thier enemy
-
Atheism, requires faith.
Agnosticism requires apathy.
-
I think this particular bunch is neither
-
You don't think he has more faith than proof that he is right?
-
I'm an atheist. I am not anti-religion. I figure if it makes you feel better to believe in some sort of god, whether it's a hairy thunderer or a cosmic muffin or something in between, have at it. I only ask that you not show up at my door trying to sell it to me.
-
But did you get upset that people prayed for the wellbeing of the survivors of the paris attack. Said praying means you support the attack because that is the nature of prayer.
This is the degree of anti religion i deal with. I'm not really sure this is atheism. Note I'm not talking about one person.
-
Prayer doesn't bother me, per se. I don't mind if you want to pray for (whatever) at home, in church, out in public, anywhere you want, on your own. But I do take issue with teachers leading prayers in public schools, in classrooms, or at school sporting events. If the students want to say a prayer on their own, more power to them. But to have some adult authority figure call for group prayer, no, and here's why.
I grew up and went to public school in the South, in the Bible belt. Every morning in class, over the intercom, came the obligatory reading of the Bible passage of the day, and a prayer. Now, often as not, the passage read was from the New Testament, and it seemed Jesus and the 'Holy Trinity' were always mentioned in the prayer. I was aware, even then, that we had Jewish kids in school, and their religion recognized none of those. As well, from the 4th to 6th grades I was in class with a girl whose family was atheist. She was forced to sit through all this and listen to it, even though it went completely against her family's beliefs, or lack thereof. She was picked on and harassed by the other kids for quietly doing her schoolwork during the Bible reading and prayer, and for not standing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. NO child in public school should have to be subjected to that kind of pressure and harassment from their classmates over religion.
Notice I said child. If someone wants to open a town council meeting or some such with a prayer, I don't care so much, because the attendees most likely are adult enough that if they don't believe that way, they can ignore it.
-
Would you get upset with religious dietary kaws saying it's the role of government to deal with peoples bealth and religion has no role in telling telling people to not eat harmful foods. Example hindi do not eat beef. Muslims halil food restrictions. Jewish kosher laws. These rules actually has been beneficial but my friends are upset it'sreligion has a role in it.
-
Would I be upset if the government decided I had to follow some religious dietary law? Hell yes. Government has no business enforcing any religious law.
-
I take prayer seriously and would encourage anyone to try it.
But forcing or coercing or cajoling someone to pray just results in a meaningless prayer at the cost of freewill.
I don't imagine God wanting anything like forced prayer.
-
Would I be upset if the government decided I had to follow some religious dietary law? Hell yes. Government has no business enforcing any religious law.
Besides, I like bacon. Well, pretty much any kind of pork. The gummint can have it when they pry it from my cold, dead, greasy hands.
-
Prayer is a demonstrable waste if time in the sense that some higher power that gives a damn is listening and is capable of actually doing something. Stating what one wishes for in coherent terms can often be beneficial. What exactly do you want, and why, in the sense that one thinks he should explain why he thinks he should have a wish granted can often lead to helpful insight. Admitting that one is not personally all powerful by acknowledging that there is a more powerful Being is also helpful.
The Lord's Prayer is minimally helpful, The 23rd Psalm is drivel. Thinking of oneself as a sheep in a flock is NOT helpful. I mean SHEEP? Please!
The Christian religion ( and Islam as well) are largely faith-based self- contradictory nonsense, If a loving God did exist, he would NOT have written such messes as the Bible and the Koran. This does not prove that there is no God, just not one that would behave in such silly and often violent and illogical ways.
It require faith to not believe in Christianity and Islam (and we could throw in some others as well). It requires logic and an ability to think logically.
Nor does being an agnostic require apathy. Saying one does not know is not the same as saying that one does not care or care to know.
One can arrive at the conclusion that the Christian/Muslim/Jewish God does not not exist by simply reading the various holy books which are far to poorly7 written and contradictory to be the work of a Perfect Being or inspired by ant such being. Of course, one does need faith to believe that God must be perfect, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent,
-
It requires a lot of confidence for one to state that all the actions and words of an omnipotent and supremely intelligent being would be totally comprehensible to the confident stator.
-
It requires a lot of confidence for one to state that all the actions and words of an omnipotent and supremely intelligent being would be totally comprehensible to the confident stator.
============================================================
Omnipotence is a clear term and is not hard at all for anyone to comprehend.
If the Biblical God had been omniscient, then he would have done something to have prevented the necessity of the Great Flood and the wiping out of most life on the planet. That does not require any great amount of logic.
The idea that Adam & Eve eating one piece of forbidden fruit is clearly NOT proper justification for damning the entire human race forever. NOT the act of any loving deity at all.
There is no need for malaria or the mosquitoes that transmit it on this planet.
No loving God would create evil shit like malaria and Guinea worms.
-
There is no need for malaria or the mosquitoes that transmit it on this planet.
No loving God would create evil shit like malaria and Guinea worms.
A God with justice would curse nothing?
And the bible is exactly literal? No allegory? No metaphor?
Potters do not slam and pound clay , whirl and fire it , because they hate clay.
-
Right. A just and loving God would curse nothing. Certainly not at random in the way that innocent people are cursed with malaria and other diseases.
A loving God would not send Jesus to save the world and then allow a Mohammad 600 years later in the same part of the world.
Mohammad appearing in the time place and fashion he did makes zero sense in any possible Christian context.
-
Mohammad appearing in the time place and fashion he did makes zero sense in any possible Christian context.
Ok, but as a Christian I don't feel compelled to defend Mohammed.
-
Clay, in and of itself, is inanimate and lifeless. It has no feeling, no beliefs, no hopes, fears or aspirations for a better life. God as a potter and mankind as clay?
X asks how can a loving God be so cruel to his creation. My question, for years, is how the Christian god can so callously mislead and lie to his creations.
We have evidence, scientific evidence, that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago right here on earth. We have scientific evidence the earth itself is billions of years old. That the stars, the galaxies, and the universe itself is even older. Yet according to the Bible, as calculated by Ussher, the entire creation took place just over 6000 years ago. This is calculated from the Bible, the supposedly unerring word of god, as passed down to various prophets and scribes and whatnot.
Now, there is a huge discrepancy between 6000 years ago and fifteen billion years ago. Why the difference? Archaeologists can show man was present in the Americas longer than the Bible says the universe even existed - why?
I get some who admit, basically, yes, the Bible is allegorical, the creation story and other parts were made up for the same reason some Native American tribes tell the story of the great turtle, holding all creation on his back - simply put, they don't know, so the ancients spun tales to explain what they didn't know. Now, that's all well and good, except when you think about it, if the Bible made up some stuff, how do we know it isn't all made up? Or just certain parts - but then which parts? We have archaeological evidence that backs up some parts of it. We also can show parts of the Bible completely contradict other parts, or are even completely false. So we're stuck with, the Bible lies.
The alternative is no more appealing, but it's the one most of the hard-core believers I've talked to try to fall back on - that the Bible is absolute truth, and the evidence is wrong. The claim is that all this archaelogical, paleontological, geological, astronomical, scientific evidence was planted to mislead us and make man doubt the Bible's truth. This alternative gives us a lying, deceitful god, who uses trickery to mislead mankind into believing false evidence, thus condemning ourselves to hell as non-believers.
Is that the kind of god you want?
-
I alwats thought my religion and science has no true conflict and my thoughts of god was hardly as hands on to be as loving or nonloving as brought up here.
Thiers alot of us radical baptist who think like this. We start out traditional but came to our conclusion on our own and confound how we all seem to get the same idea.
-
I am not out to convert you, and I don't generally discuss religion because it is such a divisive topic. I have my beliefs, others have theirs, and as long as each is happy in their beliefs, it's all good.
-
I have also intend not to convert. But this is not toward you hnumpah but i do question the current extreme anti-religious trend . I stated example of my discussion with my friend who the mere mention of religion gets him on a tangent. But from the response here i see it really hasn't been as rampant as i thought. But i do see such behavior in the news and various internet talks
-
Like anything else, kimba, it's the extremes that get noticed or make the news. I don't have any problem with Christians (this is just an example), or even fundamentalist Christians, or any of the myriad divisions and denominations thereof. They go to their church, worship and pray to their god, whatever makes them happy. None of that bothers me.
What I don't like is people trying to shove their beliefs down other's throats. I don't like people trying to force prayer and religious teachings into public schools. I don't like people banging on my door, figuring just because they have a Bible in their hands and they are trying to 'save' me, the NO SOLICITING signs I have prominently posted do not apply to them. I don't like people trying to tell me i'm going to hell because I don't believe as they do.
Why is Islam in the news lately? It's not because Yusef, or Mohammed, or Saeed - your Joe-blow average Muslim - goes to the local mosque, or prays several times a day, or has a different holy book, or a different name for God. It's because a few extremists twist and pervert the teachings and beliefs of Islam to their own ends. If Christianity had their own extremists (and who's to say they don't?), we would have people preaching that anyone who didn't accept their God should be wiped out, down to the last man, woman and child; their livestock killed as well; and their cities destroyed. They would be preaching slavery is totally acceptable and legal, women should always be subservient to men, transgressors should be stoned, and on and on....All of this taken from the Bible. And before anyone starts going "But...but...but...", claiming it's all OT teachings that were superceded by the NT, look again.
But again, it's the extremes you notice. The everyday people minding their own business barely rate a passing glance.
-
Christianity has already had its days of intolerance, There were all those religious wars between the 1400's until the "troubles" in Ireland. I agree that Islam is worse now, but the fact is that Judaism, Christianity and have all had their bad days, mostly because each has claims that it is superior to all the others.
-
Christianity has already had its days of intolerance, There were all those religious wars between the 1400's until the "troubles" in Ireland. I agree that Islam is worse now, but the fact is that Judaism, Christianity and have all had their bad days, mostly because each has claims that it is superior to all the others.
Is atheism never going in such an intolerant path?
-
We have evidence, scientific evidence, that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago right here on earth. We have scientific evidence the earth itself is billions of years old. That the stars, the galaxies, and the universe itself is even older. Yet according to the Bible, as calculated by Ussher, the entire creation took place just over 6000 years ago. This is calculated from the Bible, the supposedly unerring word of god, as passed down to various prophets and scribes and whatnot.
I have never added up all of the begats. If I did I would consider the result an estimate based on a presumed length of generations, and the presumption that nothing , however trivial , was left out.
I take the scientific evidence to be a lot more precise even though on the geologic time scale misplacing a few thousand years is a small rounding error. Mostly because the geologic record is automatically kept and can be examined by anyone. About a year ago I found a Trilobite myself.
I am not aware of any scripture that claims that the Bible contains every scientific fact nor every fact of history. I just don't think this is what it is for.
-
James Ussher (1581-1656) calculated all the begats and ages etc and figured, according to the Bible, creation began in 4004 BC - specifically, on October 23 at about 6 pm. He didn't specify a time zone.
You can let it slip a few hundred, or a few thousand, years either way, and still not come anywhere close to the billions of years science can show the universe has existed. Nor the billions of years the earth itself has existed. Or the millions of years life has existed on earth. Or the tens of thousands man himself has been around.
The fact is, the Bible is so wrong on so many points that can be proven, through astronomy, paleontology, archaelogy, other historical records and accounts; and many of the stories have been shown to be allegorical, or 'borrowed' from other civilizations; and it contradicts itself at times; what one is left wondering is what, if any, is left to be believed? Can any of it be believed? What is the explanation for the inaccuracies?
Was this 'perfect' god such a goof-off he let the writers screw it up? Why didn't he correct it? Did he intentionally have all this crap put in there to mislead people so they would misbelieve and go to hell for it? All anyone can give me is a bunch of gobbledygook about the human mind not being able to comprehend blah blah blah. I comprehend just fine when someone is trying to shine me on.
-
There was definitely some shining on happening , but was it the fault of the scripture ?
Was James Ussher reading into the Bible some information it was never meant to have?
Some of the "errors" of scripture require some work to produce.
Some of what it gets right is really surprising.
-
Is atheism never going in such an intolerant path?
There is really no such thing as "atheism" in the same way that there is something called "Christianity" or "Islam". There is no organized body of atheists that all believe the same thing, as Christians believe the Apostle's Creed, or Muslims believe the Koran, or that there is but one God and Mohammad is his last and greatest prophet,
Atheists simply believe that, because there is no adequate proof that God as described in the Bible or Koran (an eternal omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent Creator of the Universe), no such entity is in any conceivable way likely to exist. There might be one or more intolerant atheists, but there is no atheist movement to which all atheists belong, Atheism is not a religion, it is simply a single belief. An atheist can be religious and perhaps even spiritual. There is no requirement that all spirits be immortal, after all. Buddha refused to deal with the afterlife because his goal was to teach people how to lead more beneficial, possibly happier lives on Earth during their life spans.
-
Some of the "errors" of scripture require some work to produce.
===========================================================
How about this: the tale of the Gaderene Swine,
https://tvaraj2inspirations.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/miracle-of-jesus-the-healing-of-the-gadarene-demoniacs/
In this bit of scripture, there are one or more "demoniacs" blocking the road and preventing Interprovincial Commerce. Jesus sees these ranting crazy guys as possessed by the demons, and removes the demoniacs in a fanciful and rather incredible manner.
Let us note that Jesus is said to be God.
God is defined as omnipotent. Ergo, Jesus is also omnipotent.
An omnipotent being could cause demons to vanish instantly with no effort. An omnipotent being can do anything. That is the meaning of omnipotence.
But Jesus did not do this, Instead, he cast the demons into a herd of pigs, This caused the pigs to run into the Sea of Galilee and drown.
If you believe in the Bible and the accuracy of this tale, you are therefore acknowledging that (1) there are such things as demons, (2) demons are the cause of insane antisocial behavior, (3) insanity can be cured by relocating demons into pigs, which (5) will then become suicidal, and destroying both the pigs and the demons that possess them.
I suppose this also indicates that demons (unlike Satan and his Fallen Angel accomplices are mortal) and can be drowned.
Most sane people do not seem to believe that insanity is the result of demon infestation.
There are instances of Christians furgling venomous snakes to show that they are godly, but I have yet to hear of any preacher who cures insanity through the relocation of demons into swine, and the accompanying swinish suicide.
I imagine that it was tried, and found to be ineffective.
This tale contradicts a lot of things we know about insanity as well as pigs. I have yet to hear a preacher cover this topic, perhaps because it is so lame.
It is not necessary to prove that every bit of dumb nonsense in the Bible is flawed to prove that the Bible is flawed and imperfect.
We must produce only ONE black swan to prove that the statement that "all swans are white" is false.
-
We must produce only ONE black swan to prove that the statement that "all swans are white" is false.
I think I can agree that not all insanity , cruelty or stupidity is demon related.
What proportion is I am not qualified to ascertain.
But, do you mean that a single instance of demon inspired behavior would prove the principal, no matter how rare?
-
In matters of satan and demons I'm alot less forgiving in the concept. I've seen alot human failings and refuse to place blame on anybody else but humans. I understand temptation we all have it but refuse to give credit to the devil made that rich guy buy 5k worth of computers to that busty secretary for no reason.
-
Is atheism never going in such an intolerant path?
There is really no such thing as "atheism"..........
So you would not acknowledge the dozens of countries that have one time or another made Atheism the official, State sanctioned, orthodox religion?
-
So you would not acknowledge the dozens of countries that have one time or another made Atheism the official, State sanctioned, orthodox religion?
Of[ course not, because none of them has done this.
The Soviet Union proclaimed that the Party did not recognize religion, but there was no institutional racism, with atheist priests, choirs and congregations. Atheism is a single belief. It is not a religion, just a philosophical stance.
-
But, do you mean that a single instance of demon inspired behavior would prove the principal, no matter how rare?
No, but a single part of the Bible that is clearly untrue means that the Bible is not perfect,and that suggests that it is not divinely inspired, either. And there is a whole BUNCH of inaccurate crap in the Bible. Google this sometime.
As for demons, they are invisible, odorless, tasteless and otherwise undetectable. Like angels. So I can't imagine how you could prove anything was caused by demons.
Demonic possession is generally thought of as superstition by most educated people.
-
But, do you mean that a single instance of demon inspired behavior would prove the principal, no matter how rare?
No, but a single part of the Bible that is clearly untrue means that the Bible is not perfect,and that suggests that it is not divinely inspired, either. And there is a whole BUNCH of inaccurate crap in the Bible. Google this sometime.
As for demons, they are invisible, odorless, tasteless and otherwise undetectable. Like angels. So I can't imagine how you could prove anything was caused by demons.
Demonic possession is generally thought of as superstition by most educated people.
It would be a black swan.
Proof of demons presence might be a bit dangerous to search for and present , so no thank you.
If you have some proof of their nonexistence I would like to see it , I am going to want something stronger than just that the cool crowd thinks so.
I don't know about an error in the Bible, I also cannot claim to understand everything in the bible, the bits I do not understand are not necessarily errors. If we had in our possession a truly true scripture with no errors at all in it, how would we know ?
Some of the "errors " just are not, like the rounding of Pi to three. Rounding Pi to three is rounding, rounding is not error, if you want a Pi that is not rounded at all you need to set aside a lot of time. How serious is the rounding error , the difference between Pi and three?
3.14 >3 by approximately 5%
Big one there, if you are really searching.
The age of the Earth isn't really given in scripture , though the age of humanity is implied by the number of "Begats".
How old does science say humanity is?
How old is human history, our collective memories ?
Comparing the Bible to a text on geology misses the point of the geology text as well as it misses the point of the Bible.
The Bible is also allowed to be allegorical , I do not think the beautiful woman described in the Song of Solomon had a neck that looked literally like a stone tower or breasts that looked literally like fauns. If you want to count that sort of thing as error, go on ahead but you are not going to enjoy Shakespeare much either.
So do I have to think that the tower of Babel touched the sky?
No , and I don't think anyone ever did, that does not make the story pointless.
So I think that the Bible is free of black swans , because I try to be realistic in my expectations. Some of the arguments against the accuracy of the bible carry their own black swan vulnerability , if you want to be that exacting.
-
The Bible is filled with multitudinous crap that is NOT allegorical.
If it is the Word of God, then God is a horrible writer.
There was no Biblical Flood. The Black Sea was joined to the Mediterranean by an earthquake. But the entire world was not covered by water,
There was no Tower of Babel. There were people in Mesopotamia who built Zuggurats. A big one was probably felled by another earthquake,and a story was made up to explain it so people would consider the priest to be a smart person and continue to pay him. Adam and Eve are clearly fictional, no not allegorical, fictional.The whole tale is pure crapola.
-
Science tells us that the human race consisted of a very small group something like one million years ago, this is a partial validation of the facts of a story that I used to think was entirely allegorical.
Under the north sea there is a lost land that used to be productive human habitat, stone tools are brought up in fishing nets and dredges . The flood story is found in several separated traditions , there may be a difference between flooding all of the Earth and just flooding everything that matters , but this would seem like a detail to a story teller and I am impressed with what has survived for more than ten thousand years of mostly oral retelling.
Or perhaps I am wrong and the story is more factual than allegorical, I really don't know what that thing on the flanks of Mount Ararat is.
I don't think it possible that the Moses story is the whole story, but the part about mans relationship to God is the part that makes it matter.
I think the black swan is waddling around , but he is more mine than yours.
What scripture is there that says that scripture is simple and easy to understand?
I could show you the scripture that says the opposite, so flocks of black swans should be expected , even if some of them are dyed .
Psalms 78:21 I will open my mouth in a parable. I will utter dark sayings of old, which we have heard and known and our fathers have told us.
2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also has made us able ministers of the new testament, not of the letter but of the spirit for the letter kills but the spirit gives life.
What do you make of such advice?
In the end I don't expect to argue you into belief, that is just not how it is done .
You are demanding of the scriptures in just the opposite way than I am.
-
Psalms 78:21 I will open my mouth in a parable. I will utter dark sayings of old, which we have heard and known and our fathers have told us.
2 Corinthians 3:6 Who also has made us able ministers of the new testament, not of the letter but of the spirit for the letter kills but the spirit gives life.
What do you make of such advice?
The first quote is not advice at all. The "dark sayings" are not mentioned, only referred to as some ancient blather. No content is provided.
The second is gibberish.
"The letter kills but the spirit gives life." What letter? What the poo is he jabbering about?
That does not mean anything. It is also not advice. Certainly neither quote is useful to anyone for any purpose.
-
You believe that even the densest racist can converse in code.
But cannot imagine King David , Solomon or Jesus doing so?
Even when they say they are going to?
I "get " this , but I credit a blessing from God for each scripture I understand .
I have faith that I will be blessed for each scripture I need and I ask humbly.
I definitely do not get all of them, some of them must be for other people.
-
A Perfect God would be able to write in such a manner that everyone would understand exactly the same thing from each sentence, and they would understand perfectly. A vague book has its authority to blame.
As a divine handbook, the Bible sucks, and sucks mightily. As I have often said, there should have been a Gospel according to Jesus Christ.
If you want a job done right, do it yourself.
-
A Perfect God would be able to write in such a manner that everyone would understand exactly the same thing from each sentence, and they would understand perfectly. A vague book has its authority to blame.
As a divine handbook, the Bible sucks, and sucks mightily. As I have often said, there should have been a Gospel according to Jesus Christ.
If you want a job done right, do it yourself.
It is better than you can imagine.
Encoded so well that the simplest with the key learn well , but the most sophisticated without the keys are flummoxed.
How is this less than perfect?
-
You yourself claim not to understand it.
If the goal is to communicate, then no code, no parables, no allegorical claptrap is needed or even desirable.
Again, the Bible sucks at what we are told is its intent. And mightily does it suck.
According to your twisted logic here, a jigsaw puzzle of the Mona Lisa is more perfect than the original painting.
Good writing communicates. Bad writing does not communicate.
Deliberately hiding the meaning from the reader is really, really bad writing.
But I do not think it is an attempt to hide the meaning, I think it is just poorly written.
-
Within the scripture are warnings that the meanings are often hidden , and in evidence I present two scriptures in this thread that I understood but you say you don't.
A message in the clear is better for some purposes , a message in code is better for others.
Best of all is a message that is convertible , as the Bible is understood mostly when blessed , God can withhold or bestow understanding as he wishes.
Jesus did this in the very company of his disciples. Telling parables ...often .
I like a bit of Shakespeare too, and because of changes in custom and language I find bits of it hard to understand , this proves Shakespeare was a bad writer? Or does it mark the limits of my ability?
-
Jesus was NOT a great communicator. If he had been one, people would have understood his silly parables and would not be arguing over what they mean after 2000 years. Few people dispute the meaning of Aesop's fables. Abraham Lincoln was full of useful tales, as was Will Rogers, and no one seems to have problems with understanding what they meant. Aesop, Lincoln, and Rogers were all far, far better at such stuff than Jesus, who was allegedly God and therefore Perfect.
I see no reason to give Jesus a pass because he was divine, born to a virgin, or impressed rabbis at age 12.
In the case of Shakespeare, vagueness stems from changes in the English language and our lack of understanding the customs of England in the 1600's.
There is no reason to use a parable unless it communicates BETTER than stating the point directly.
-
Is that how you understand parables?
How do you understand the concept of Koan?
http://swapmeetdave.com/Bible/Parables/index.htm
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2013&version=NIV
Matthew 13
10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”
11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.
If I may paraphrase
"Hey Jesus , why so many parables?"
"Hey heaven just isn't for everyone , even if everyone has a chance at it , our enemies are amongst the flock, but my sheep know my voice.
-
If all of God's children have a shot at Heaven, then this makes no sense,
It appears that Jesus is clearly discriminating here.
He never went out of his way to bother to speak to Gentiles.
If you want to be understood, speak clearly and lose the stupid parables.
-
Amazing.
Where is the scripture that says that scripture is understandable to everyone , or that it should be?
Haven't I found for you three scriptures that say almost the opposite?
-
Where is the scripture that says that scripture is understandable to everyone , or that it should be?
Haven't I found for you three scriptures that say almost the opposite?
Indeed you have. That is why the scripture and Bible SUCK.
It is simple logic that if a loving deity wants to actually save people, he must be easily understood.
But this idea runs afoul or the main purpose of religion: to dominate society and stay afloat.
The goal of the priest is to be respected as someone who can daze and dazzle the believers with his secret knowledge, "Only I can save you! without me and my church, temple, synagogue or other huge institution you are DOOMED! "
Although God is everywhere and forever, he still requires these ornate and expensive architectural structures to wow the peasants.
The Mumbo Jumbo must be Jumbo in order to perpetuate the dominance of the religion.
-
It is simple logic that if a loving deity wants to actually save people, he must be easily understood.
You would have to explain this a little more, I can't see its resemblance to logic.
-
If you cannot see the logic here, then you are incapable of logic.
-
It only raises questions , it does not answer any nor does it point to a logical process.
For example , would God want to save you even if you were totally incapable of understanding the process of salvation?
I don't think this impossible nor unscriptural.
Jesus's discussion of faith indicates that the faith of little children is the best kind, such that anything less is dangerous.
So what if the salvation God wants to hand you is totally incomprehensible to you and I, would our lack of sophistication make us impossible to save?
There are a lot of people who cannot explain an internal combustion engine , but by taking most of the workings on faith they learn to drive anyway.
What if salvation requires the understanding and power of God himself to produce , but is offered in a form that such as we may start and operate , not understanding every gear ratio or spark advance setting , but taking the mysterious part on faith?
-
Read what you wrote. It makes no sense at all.
-
So what if the salvation God wants to hand you is totally incomprehensible to you and I, would our lack of sophistication make us impossible to save?
=========================================================
Why should it be totally incomprehensible?
Does Microsoft write programs that are incomprehensible to PC computers?
If God designed us, and is all-powerful, why would he make his major purpose for us incomprehensible?
That would totally make no sense.
-
So what if the salvation God wants to hand you is totally incomprehensible to you and I, would our lack of sophistication make us impossible to save?
=========================================================
Does Microsoft write programs that are incomprehensible to PC computers?
Yes Microsoft writes programs that are incomprehensible to 90% or more of their customers.
These customers install them in their computers just following the instructions with faith .
Computers do not comprehend .
How a computer flip flop circuit stores a bit to memory or how a set of binary numbers can be added in a function of Boolean Logic I do understand , in a rather basic way, I am not a real programmer.
How a computer memory can be put on long term storage I get.
What a soul is made of and what a soul needs to last, I haven't got at all , even though I use one every day.
-
The point is that Microsoft writes software that can be run on ANY PC with the same specs.
A computer's ability to run software is analogous to a human comprehending something he has heard
or read.
You say that faith is required to be an atheist. If that is so, then it takes faith to disbelieve anything: unicorns, leprechauns, puppymonkeybabies.
The attitude of most atheists is "I will believe in a god when I see one", not absolute certainty that God does not exist.
-
At present "comprehension " is not what computers do.
The software is a set of instructions as a paper tape is to a player piano.
Although the complexity of combined subroutines can be enormous, all that is ever happening is that switches are closing and opening in sequence.
The program is instructions for the switches to open and close.
The programmer must comprehend the purpose of the program , and mostly know how the system works.
The customer needs have much less comprehension, his following of instructions with faith in the programmers skill and comprehension gets his system to work without knowing what silicon is or what the clock speed must be.
Neither does the computer know what silicon is or what the clock speed must be, it just does as told.
So that is my imperfect analog of faith in action, meant to illustrate that faith is needed where comprehension is impossible.
Do you really have faith that there is no unicorn?
Perhaps there is a unicorn, but he is not exactly as he has been described to you.
(http://assets.worldwildlife.org/photos/5900/images/story_full_width/MID_232820_Paul_Nicklen_NAtional_GEographic_Stock_WWF_Canada.jpg?1387482058)
-
A narwhal is not a unicorn. and that has nothing whatever to9 do with this topic.
-
In what respect is a Narwhal not a unicorn?
-
In the respect that a narwhal is a sea creature and has no legs, no mane, and is similar only because it has a horn in its forehead.
Any one can easily see the difference.
Of course, a unicorn is imaginary,and a narwhal is not.
This has zero to do with the main discussion.
-
So why bring them up?
-
In the respect that a narwhal is a sea creature and has no legs, no mane, and is similar only because it has a horn in its forehead.
Any one can easily see the difference.
Of course, a unicorn is imaginary,and a narwhal is not.
This has zero to do with the main discussion.
It is a single horn , for most of them, just as described and examples of this horn labeled Unicorn exist in many curio cabinets.
Point being , it is a real thing , though not appearing as it does in artistic conception.
The truth is actually better than the legend in my opinion.
-
Unicorns are better than narwhals as imaginary symbols.
The Jesus that exists in the minds of most Christians is almost certainly better symbolically than the real Jesus.
-
If I remember right manatee was mistaken for mermaids also
-
You have to be one really really seriously horny sailor to confuse a manatee with a mermaid, Or perhaps a visually impaired one.
-
Unicorns are better than narwhals as imaginary symbols.
The Jesus that exists in the minds of most Christians is almost certainly better symbolically than the real Jesus.
What do you think about the real Jesus?
The man that so much symbol was piled onto?
-
The real Jesus seems to have been altered into a very different individual by Paul. Paul never met the real Jesus, of course and Paul did not live in the same cultural milieu as the real Jesus. The Jesus story in the NT could well have been written by four men (well, probably men, we cannot be sure) that also may have never met the real Jesus. I do not actually buy the "son of God" bit, either.
-
Paul never met the real Jesus,
If you assume that the miraculous Jesus is not the real one. of course and Paul did not live in the same cultural milieu as the real Jesus.
I don't know what you mean by this one. The Jesus story in the NT could well have been written by four men (well, probably men, we cannot be sure) that also may have never met the real Jesus.
Matthew, Mark , Luke , John? I do not actually buy the "son of God" bit, either.
I assumed this .
So there was a real Jesus?
He had a real point?
-
There MAY HAVE BEEN a real Jesus. Perhaps more than one.
'
He did not fit the description of a Messiah. A Messiah is more of a reincarnation of the legend of King David than an actual Son of God. Jehovah does NOT mate with mortals in the Hebrew religion. The closest thing to a legitimate Messiah was Shimon Bar Kochkba. who organized the Jews and drove the Romans out of the territory, though unfortunately not permanently.
So I am agnostic about the actual existence of a Yeshua Bar Yosef. I am even more doubtful that he was the person described by the unknown writers who called themselves Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Note that Mark (Marcus) and Luke (Lucas) are Roman, not Hebrew names. The real Yeshua (Jesus) had almost no dealings with Gentiles like Romans.
Perhaps this was the real Yeshua's father:
http://www.reformation.org/jesus-son-of-tiberius-julius-pantera.html
-
Then there is DINKANISM:
https://www.facebook.com/DinkaConsciousness/
Be a Dinkanist!
Make Cutting the Cheese a spiritual experience!
Cheese be Upon You
-
Unicorns are mentioned in the Bible.
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/on_the_front_lines_of_the_culture_wars/2011/08/are-there-really-unicorns-in-the-king-james-bible.html
Naturally, the fundies claim that it really meant some sort of rhinoceros.
Fossils of actual unicorns have never been found.
No pegasi, either,
The Bible claims that bats are a type of bird.
-
Why is it not a rhinoceros?
How Horse like is a Hippopotamus?
( Hippo - horse potamus- riverdwelling)
-
I understand the origin of the word "hippopotamus". It does not, however have a single thing to do with the existence of unicorns. The Bible is full of errors of fact like this, precisely the sort of errors that one would expect from untraveled, unstudious old shepherds --NOT anyone who is omniscient or even guided by an omniscient presence.
-
The people who wrote the Old Testament didn't live so far from Rinoseri that their description needs to be doubted.
Ethiopians seemed to be visiting the middle east regularly, their description would have been first hand.
The guys who drew up the heraldry in which the unicorn looks something like a horse , were getting the description worse than third hand. Perhaps you have a Eurocentric point of view and it seems to you unlikely that a lot of Europeans could be wrong about something that a few middle easterners might be right about.
I would also suppose that the Norse who could have seen the Narwhal alive or washed up on the beach didn't mistake it for a horse either.
-
I found this to be droll: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/abletochoose/2016/03/they-were-afraid/?ref_widget=related&ref_blog=abletochoose&ref_post=was-jesus-insane-his-own-family-thought-so
-
Getting back to the issue of atheism, and kimba';s original question, I have found two places interesting.
youtube has a series of graphic (ie cartoons) in the site named darkmatter.com. They are quite well thought out and quote the Bible pretty accurately when a topic comes up.
and also friendlyatheist.com is a great place for thought pieces.
The youtube location will have many, many more discussions, by atheists, theists and dialogs between the two that I have noticed. Many more than I have time to investigate.
-
i forgot what I wrote but since then I notice a biased from my friend against all but the jewish religion. I suspect like any human people tend to pick and choose thier anything
-
Stuff drummed into people before they are able to think critically tends to stay with them forever.
That is the advantage that Islam has: the five times daily prayers cause the mind to dredge up memories of prayer after prayer after prayer from childhood, effectively rendering the believer incapable of questioning the illogic of the belief structure.
Jesus said "Be as a young child" for a reason. The reason is to shut out reasoning. All religions do this to a point (those that didn't did not survive) But with five times daily prayers, Isl;am does it better. It is self-indoctrination, which is the most effective kind.
"Believe or I will hit you with a stick" is far less effective than "Believe or I will cause your mind to bring up guilt every time it dares to think outside the box".
Ted Cruz said "Every president should start the day on his knees".
Cruz had a great education, but his mind is warped. His social skills are such that he has negative charisma with people who can see through his overindoctrinated personality. The sucker craves martyrdom for his wacko beliefs. He is incapable of realizing that he is a wacko.
-
Ted Cruz said "Every president should start the day on his knees".
Cruz had a great education, but his mind is warped. His social skills are such that he has negative charisma with people who can see through his overindoctrinated personality. The sucker craves martyrdom for his wacko beliefs. He is incapable of realizing that he is a wacko.
He is just quoting Lincoln there.
What is your better alternative ?
Want a president with no knowledge of humility ?
Oooops forgot , that is what I want now.
-
If that is a quote from Lincoln, it is a diumb quote, anyway.
How are prayer and humility linked?
There are thousands of people who feel superior BECAUSE the pray.
-
Mitsubishi, Toyota, Fiat Chrysler and Volkswagen.
If you are buying a new car you should check out the details online.
There are millions of vehicles that still have ammonium nitrate inflators that are essentially tiny bombs that can explode with so much force they can send bits of metal into your jugular, which is not a good thing.
Magazines that sell ads advertising cars have not revealed the extent of this problem. The government has done a pretty good job of demanding action, but Takata cannot make enough inflators to cover the needs of the recall.
I observe that no political party has a word to say about this. Takata has settled with people its airbags have killed and maimed, always with a pledge of confidentiality regarding the amount awarded.
I read about this in an article in Bloomberg Magazine, that indicated that the Senate hearings had managed to pressure Takata (the airbag manufacturer) to reveal that "four car makers were still making airbags that will need to be replaced", but the magazine did not reveal WHICH four companies, so I googled it, and found that this was mentioned in a New York Times article.
If you have friends who are shopping for a car that do not deserve to have their jugulars sliced by airbag shrapnel, pass the word.