We sometimes have Christians on this forum state that the OT was a bit crazy
But that the teaching of Jesus made up for that, with Jesus being Mr Perfect and all.
So, again finding myself alone in a hotel room, and hotel rooms invariably having Gideon's bible, I decided to read some.
I found this gem
From Matthew, this was a psycho-bable from Mr Perfect himself
"Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' "For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
"But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
So I would like to know, do Christian's starve to death? Those horrible pictures of starving kids in Africa, god is not providing, is this because they don't seek the kingdom of god?
Why am I overweight? I do not seek the kingdom of god.
Jesus also blurted out
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you
For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
So are these starving children not asking for food?
And what about when Jesus said
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow for tomorrow will worry about its own things, Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
What kind of crap advise is this, are we to max out our credit cards, hire purchase and the like and just get what we want for today?
What about the squirrels that save nuts for the winter months or the birds that build nests so that they can have babies in the future?
Why do we bother educating ourselves, for the joy of knowledge on that day?
Why do we build schools, hospitals, roads, stadiums, recycle stations, if not for our futures?
Can anyone explain the "wisdom" of Jesus here?
I think the guy was a guy of his times, and preaching mainly to the poor who did have to struggle for their day to day survival. Good crutch, basically. Good meme in fertile ground.
But what about the quote where Jesus himself said that he had come to fulfill the OT or something like that?
Quote from: Stevil on May 11, 2012, 09:39:33 PM
Can anyone explain the "wisdom" of Jesus here?
Obviously from the context you read it, it makes no sense.
If you read it in the context of a believer it makes perfect sense.
One must take into account many aspects of Jesus' words to gain their meaning. The audience being one aspect.
When speaking about caring for others and/or the problems of the world, we have Commandments 5-10 which Christ says all the Law and the Prophets hang on these; Love God and love your neighbor.
Can God end starvation? Yes. Why doesn't He? I don't know, I can't formulate an answer which would satisfy you, however what I can do is simply say that Christianity has failed to love their neighbor of which the evidence is clear.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 11, 2012, 10:36:10 PM
Can God end starvation? Yes. Why doesn't He?
So if Jesus = god then did god break his promise when he stated
"Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' "For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
"But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.And yet Christians, whom seek the kingdom of god and his righteousness, starve to death because although god knows they need to eat and drink, and god has clearly promised to add those things to "you" (being the person seeking kingdom of god yadda yadda), god does not live up to this promise.
Was god lying, or has god since become incapable of fullfilling this need (e.g. died or sick or incapacitated), or is there no such thing as god?
Quote from: Stevil on May 11, 2012, 10:46:38 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 11, 2012, 10:36:10 PM
Can God end starvation? Yes. Why doesn't He?
So if Jesus = god then did god break his promise when he stated
"Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' "For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
"But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
And yet Christians, whom seek the kingdom of god and his righteousness, starve to death because although god knows they need to eat and drink, and god has clearly promised to add those things to "you" (being the person seeking kingdom of god yadda yadda), god does not live up to this promise.
Was god lying, or has god since become incapable of fullfilling this need (e.g. died or sick or incapacitated), or is there no such thing as god?
Difficult to answer. I don't readily have the answer. I accept I haven't all the answers.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 11, 2012, 10:36:10 PM
Can God end starvation? Yes. Why doesn't He? I don't know . . .
I think "I don't know" is a better answer to the first question.
There is more than enough food in the world to feed all 7 billion of us. The reason people starve is because of people. God has given sufficient food, and expects us to distribute it, just like the disciples did with the loaves and fishes. We have failed, not God.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 04:44:15 AM
There is more than enough food in the world to feed all 7 billion of us. The reason people starve is because of people. God has given sufficient food, and expects us to distribute it, just like the disciples did with the loaves and fishes. We have failed, not God.
But
"But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
This is a personal statement, not an address to humankind as a whole but to each individual.
The god is not providing food for the needy individual regardless if that individual seeks the kingdom of god.
God fails on his promise to the individuals.
The written word was
"and all these things shall be added to you", not with the dependency that humanity sorts itself out with regards to food distribution.
And when the written word says
"Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' Are you assuming this "not worry about what to eat" is with regards to food production and not food distribution?
So we are to worry about food distribution????
This poorly articulated statement has cost millions of lives, who wrote the bible? It wasn't the inspired word of god was it?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 04:44:15 AM
There is more than enough food in the world to feed all 7 billion of us. The reason people starve is because of people. God has given sufficient food, and expects us to distribute it, just like the disciples did with the loaves and fishes. We have failed, not God.
Soooo, does this mean that if you give thanks before your meal, you should be giving thanks to the people who sent it to you and not God? Only seems fair. If God doesn't get the blame for people starving, he shouldn't get the thanks for people eating.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 04:44:15 AM
There is more than enough food in the world to feed all 7 billion of us. The reason people starve is because of people. God has given sufficient food, and expects us to distribute it, just like the disciples did with the loaves and fishes. We have failed, not God.
If I hire some incompetent fool to manage my distribution department and not fire him when he demonstrates his incompetence and foolishness, then the failure is mine.
...So how exactly did your supposed god not fail?
QuoteSufficient for the day is its own trouble.
I've actually always liked that quote. I kind of read it as meaning "Don't go looking for hypothetical things to worry yourself over; there are enough things to worry about in the here and now." I say that to myself sometimes when my mind is going too many places at once.
Quote from: Ali on May 12, 2012, 03:08:59 PM
QuoteSufficient for the day is its own trouble.
I've actually always liked that quote. I kind of read it as meaning "Don't go looking for hypothetical things to worry yourself over; there are enough things to worry about in the here and now." I say that to myself sometimes when my mind is going too many places at once.
That's one of my biblical favorites too, for the same reason. Altho I grew up "sufficient unto the day is the trouble thereof" which I think is a more elegant wording, but probably just because I grew up with it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 04:44:15 AM
There is more than enough food in the world to feed all 7 billion of us. The reason people starve is because of people. God has given sufficient food, and expects us to distribute it, just like the disciples did with the loaves and fishes. We have failed, not God.
I would consider this, if it were not for the all-knowing claim made for god.
Quote from: Stevil on May 11, 2012, 09:39:33 PM
"Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' "For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
"But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
From what I remember from church. They used this passage, or a similar one, to get donations. Through altruism god will reward you with more money than you donated. There were always success stories of the person who gave their last penny to the church or a hungry family and instantly became wealthy.
Quote from: ThinkAnarchy on May 12, 2012, 07:39:18 PM
From what I remember from church. They used this passage, or a similar one, to get donations. Through altruism god will reward you with more money than you donated. There were always success stories of the person who gave their last penny to the church or a hungry family and instantly became wealthy.
Kinda like buying a lotto ticket LOL
Quote from: Ali on May 12, 2012, 03:08:59 PM
QuoteSufficient for the day is its own trouble.
I've actually always liked that quote. I kind of read it as meaning "Don't go looking for hypothetical things to worry yourself over; there are enough things to worry about in the here and now." I say that to myself sometimes when my mind is going too many places at once.
Except, I'm sure Ali, you go to great trouble to ensure your child's future is bright.
Quote from: Stevil on May 12, 2012, 08:20:14 PM
Quote from: Ali on May 12, 2012, 03:08:59 PM
QuoteSufficient for the day is its own trouble.
I've actually always liked that quote. I kind of read it as meaning "Don't go looking for hypothetical things to worry yourself over; there are enough things to worry about in the here and now." I say that to myself sometimes when my mind is going too many places at once.
Except, I'm sure Ali, you go to great trouble to ensure your child's future is bright.
True. I guess I've never really taken it to mean "Don't plan for the future"; just again, more "don't go looking for a reason to stress yourself out." Of course, that is a single quote. Some of the others definitely look more like "don't plan for the future."
Quote from: Stevil on May 12, 2012, 06:13:36 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 04:44:15 AM
There is more than enough food in the world to feed all 7 billion of us. The reason people starve is because of people. God has given sufficient food, and expects us to distribute it, just like the disciples did with the loaves and fishes. We have failed, not God.
But
"But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
This is a personal statement, not an address to humankind as a whole but to each individual.
The god is not providing food for the needy individual regardless if that individual seeks the kingdom of god.
God fails on his promise to the individuals.
The written word was "and all these things shall be added to you", not with the dependency that humanity sorts itself out with regards to food distribution.
And when the written word says
"Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?'
Are you assuming this "not worry about what to eat" is with regards to food production and not food distribution?
So we are to worry about food distribution????
This poorly articulated statement has cost millions of lives, who wrote the bible? It wasn't the inspired word of god was it?
Can you give the name of a single individual who starved to death because he/she followed this particular teaching with faith?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on May 12, 2012, 01:13:04 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 04:44:15 AM
There is more than enough food in the world to feed all 7 billion of us. The reason people starve is because of people. God has given sufficient food, and expects us to distribute it, just like the disciples did with the loaves and fishes. We have failed, not God.
Soooo, does this mean that if you give thanks before your meal, you should be giving thanks to the people who sent it to you and not God? Only seems fair. If God doesn't get the blame for people starving, he shouldn't get the thanks for people eating.
The food has been provided. It is there in abundance. God entrusted the world to us. He's the manufacturer, we are the distributors. If you have food, you should thank God and those who distributed it. If you don't have food, you should ask God to slap the distributors up-side the head. ;D
Quote from: Asmodean on May 12, 2012, 01:37:39 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 04:44:15 AM
There is more than enough food in the world to feed all 7 billion of us. The reason people starve is because of people. God has given sufficient food, and expects us to distribute it, just like the disciples did with the loaves and fishes. We have failed, not God.
If I hire some incompetent fool to manage my distribution department and not fire him when he demonstrates his incompetence and foolishness, then the failure is mine.
...So how exactly did your supposed god not fail?
You are correct that God has put us in charge of the earth. The food has been provided through the creation. God did his part. If we are incompetent, we will account for it at the end of the fiscal year when the performance evaluations are done. I'm involved in food distribution to the poor. I expect to receive a bonus at the end of the fiscal year. ;D
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 10:08:21 PM
the name of a single individual who starved to death because he/she followed this particular teaching with faith?
Ooh! ooh! Where was this post about this thing... This VERY thing? ???
Quote from: Asmodean on May 12, 2012, 10:14:15 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 10:08:21 PM
the name of a single individual who starved to death because he/she followed this particular teaching with faith?
Ooh! ooh! Where was this post about this thing... This VERY thing? ???
I'm waiting.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 10:13:25 PM
I'm involved in food distribution to the poor. I expect to receive a bonus at the end of the fiscal year. ;D
You will not. No self-respecting corporate suit gives a damn about the poor. Some throw an occasional wad of cash at them just so they can ride off into the sunset on their tiny white horses, but they got where they are by caring about their own needs and wants before everyone else's. And the Abrahamic god seems a particularly nasty kind of CEO.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 10:15:41 PM
I'm waiting.
I don't remember the name of that blog with the story from some paper, but there is this (http://madmikesamerica.com/2011/03/the-preachers-wife-starves-to-death-for-jesus/) for starters (although it does fail the "this particular" part)
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 10:08:21 PM
Quote from: Stevil on May 12, 2012, 06:13:36 AM
This poorly articulated statement has cost millions of lives, who wrote the bible? It wasn't the inspired word of god was it?
Can you give the name of a single individual who starved to death because he/she followed this particular teaching with faith?
It is hard to quantify the in action of people, and what lead to that in action.
But, I certainly presume out of 2 billion Christians, that some of them belief what is written in the bible and have faith that if they follow what is written then things will turn out fine.
It seems to me the Christian charity groups who go to these impoverished nations and put effort into supplying food and water, irrigation etc, well these people could be deemed as "doubting Thomas"s. Which is fine, but not as "Good" as the true believers whom don't doubt.
These true believer, (and I am willing to bet, out of 2 billion Christians that there are some), ought to go to impoverished nations and instruct the starving, not to worry about food, but instead to look for the kingdom of heaven, and that god will provide because god knows what they need.
So, it is this Faith as taught in the Bible, that I am suggesting has caused millions of people to starve to death, because as we very well know. God does not provide, not simply because a person seeks the kingdom of heaven. To not worry about food is to sign your own and your families own death warrant.
Ecurb - can you please point out in the bible where it makes a distinction between food production and food distribution, that people shouldn't worry about food production but should worry about food distribution.
An analogy for you.
Hurricane Katrina hits.
Many, many people are left stranded without food or water.
The government sends a message, a promise that all people do not need to worry about food, that there is more than enough food in the country to feed everyone. The government then does nothing to distribute food to the hurricane hit area. People starve to death.
Do you think the starving and dying people have reason to have a grievance against the government?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on May 12, 2012, 01:13:04 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 04:44:15 AM
There is more than enough food in the world to feed all 7 billion of us. The reason people starve is because of people. God has given sufficient food, and expects us to distribute it, just like the disciples did with the loaves and fishes. We have failed, not God.
Soooo, does this mean that if you give thanks before your meal, you should be giving thanks to the people who sent it to you and not God? Only seems fair. If God doesn't get the blame for people starving, he shouldn't get the thanks for people eating.
God doesn't exist. So he isn't due any thanks for anything whatsoever.
Quote from: Stevil on May 12, 2012, 10:25:21 PM
Ecurb - can you please point out in the bible where it makes a distinction between food production and food distribution, that people shouldn't worry about food production but should worry about food distribution.
The particular passage that you referenced says that if one seeks the kingdom of God first, all things will be added (all things meaning the necessities of life). Just because one is a Christian does not mean that person is "seeking first the kingdom of God." I'm sure there are Christians who have starved to death. Were they "seeking first the kingdom of God?" I don't know. That is why one needs to look at the particular case to see if the Christian who starved was focused on the kingdom of God or not.
With respect to food production vs. food distribution, I can point to two teachings of Jesus. First, he said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5, I'm too lazy right now to look up the verse) that God sends his sun on the good and the evil and his rain on the just and the unjust, or something to that effect. To me, this means that God has generally provided sufficient food, etc. for all of us, regardless of our beliefs, actions, etc. to live. This is true. There is enough food and water on the planet to nourish all of us. No question about it.
In the story about feeding the 5,000, (again, I can't remember exactly where this is, but this story is in all four gospels), in one place Jesus said "you give them something to eat." Then he provided the food (the loaves and fishes) and the disciples distributed them. So, here is a distinction between production and distribution: Jesus produces, the disciples distribute. Now, I'm convinced that one of the most important things that believers (the "church") can do is help the poor. If we did more of this and less politicking, people wouldn't hate us so much. The church should be involved in distributing God's bounty to the needy. If we did this, the state wouldn't have to do so much. But we don't do a very good job. In some areas the church does a good job, but not very many. Of course, in some areas, all efforts at distribution are thwarted by adverse political forces (North Korea) or religious forces (fundamental Islam). Eventually, God's judgment will come, beginning at "the house of God" - the church.
Quote from: Tank on May 12, 2012, 10:39:30 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on May 12, 2012, 01:13:04 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 04:44:15 AM
There is more than enough food in the world to feed all 7 billion of us. The reason people starve is because of people. God has given sufficient food, and expects us to distribute it, just like the disciples did with the loaves and fishes. We have failed, not God.
Soooo, does this mean that if you give thanks before your meal, you should be giving thanks to the people who sent it to you and not God? Only seems fair. If God doesn't get the blame for people starving, he shouldn't get the thanks for people eating.
God doesn't exist. So he isn't due any thanks for anything whatsoever.
I understand that this is the position of the vast majority of people on this forum. I'm not trying to preach here, I'm just trying to respond to the challenge presented from the perspective of a believer. Hopefully that is understood.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 10:46:14 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 12, 2012, 10:39:30 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on May 12, 2012, 01:13:04 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 04:44:15 AM
There is more than enough food in the world to feed all 7 billion of us. The reason people starve is because of people. God has given sufficient food, and expects us to distribute it, just like the disciples did with the loaves and fishes. We have failed, not God.
Soooo, does this mean that if you give thanks before your meal, you should be giving thanks to the people who sent it to you and not God? Only seems fair. If God doesn't get the blame for people starving, he shouldn't get the thanks for people eating.
God doesn't exist. So he isn't due any thanks for anything whatsoever.
I understand that this is the position of the vast majority of people on this forum. I'm not trying to preach here, I'm just trying to respond to the challenge presented from the perspective of a believer. Hopefully that is understood.
It also happens to be the truth.
If we shouldn't worry about food production, then why do we bother farming?
Why are there Christians who own farms?
Why do countries have restrictions on fishing oceans and lakes?
God will provide, we simply shouldn't bother about stuff like this.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 10:43:38 PM
Of course, in some areas, all efforts at distribution are thwarted by adverse political forces (North Korea)
Isn't at least a big chunk of that problem in that them would-be-do-gooders are trying to set conditions for helping?
Quote from: Stevil on May 12, 2012, 10:54:15 PM
If we shouldn't worry about food production, then why do we bother farming?
Why are there Christians who own farms?
Why do countries have restrictions on fishing oceans and lakes?
God will provide, we simply shouldn't bother about stuff like this.
We all do what we are capable of doing, what we are skilled at accomplishing. This teaching of Jesus doesn't mean that we don't work, it means that we don't
worry. Jesus worked as a carpenter, Paul as a tent maker, Peter & Co. as fishermen. Christians have always worked and have understood that they were supposed to work, at something. The teaching is focused on not having anxiety and worry about tomorrow. Do your job, trust in God, and it will be OK.
"Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' "For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
"But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
So here God has made a promise, and told people not to worry about food.
Nowhere is a binding agreement from humanity with regards to the food distribution.
The parties of this statement are Jesus/God - promising food.
and the seeker of the kingdom of God. - the receiver of food.
The distributor is not part of this agreement and hence is not contractually bound with regards to this "promise"
The supplier "god" has not listed any dependancies, no out clause with regards to his commitment towards the person whom lives up to their end of the bargin, e.g. seeks the kingdom of God.
I would say the seeker of the kingdom of God would have a strong agreivance case against god, for they lived upto their part of the bargain but god failed to follow through with his obligation.
It gets worse for god, knowing the future, because even if the god did somehow tie humanity into the obligation for food distribution, the god already knew this would fail, hence knowing the distributors would fail, how can the god make the promise " and all these things shall be added to you." knowing that the food would not be delivered and that the people taking up on the advise to not worry about food but instead seek the kingdom of god, would die because rather than trying to sort out how to get food, they instead spent their time reading, re-reading, interpreting and studying the bible.
A more intelligent and honest and realistic god, would advise people to look after themselves, to first and foremost cater to their own basic survival needs. This god would advise them that food distribution is a critical challenge and that humanity cannot be relied upon to ensure food is distributed to all whom needs it.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 12, 2012, 10:56:26 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 10:43:38 PM
Of course, in some areas, all efforts at distribution are thwarted by adverse political forces (North Korea)
Isn't at least a big chunk of that problem in that them would-be-do-gooders are trying to set conditions for helping?
Perhaps that is true in some cases. Did you have something specific in mind? If a Christian group says "I'll feed you, but first you have to convert," then that group has become part of the problem. The "feeding of the 5,000" paradigm in the Gospels doesn't put any conditions on those who were given bread and fish.
I was refering to the "Launch that and you won't get my food" kind of attitudes of certain governments rather than some stand-alone charity groups.
Quote from: Stevil on May 12, 2012, 11:03:15 PM
"Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' "For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
"But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
So here God has made a promise, and told people not to worry about food.
Nowhere is a binding agreement from humanity with regards to the food distribution.
The parties of this statement are Jesus/God - promising food.
and the seeker of the kingdom of God. - the receiver of food.
The distributor is not part of this agreement and hence is not contractually bound with regards to this "promise"
The supplier "god" has not listed any dependancies, no out clause with regards to his commitment towards the person whom lives up to their end of the bargin, e.g. seeks the kingdom of God.
I would say the seeker of the kingdom of God would have a strong agreivance case against god, for they lived upto their part of the bargain but god failed to follow through with his obligation.
It gets worse for god, knowing the future, because even if the god did somehow tie humanity into the obligation for food distribution, the god already knew this would fail, hence knowing the distributors would fail, how can the god make the promise " and all these things shall be added to you." knowing that the food would not be delivered and that the people taking up on the advise to not worry about food but instead seek the kingdom of god, would die because rather than trying to sort out how to get food, they instead spent their time reading, re-reading, interpreting and studying the bible.
This particular promise is toward those who "seek first the kingdom of God." I take this to mean those who make their relationship with God a priority. The promise is not to humanity as a whole, although God has provided (IMHO) for humanity. My point about distribution is simply that you can't blame God if we don't do our part. If a Christian is seeking the kingdom of God, he/she should be concerned about the less fortunate. If all Christians did this, there would be no starvation in the world. There are 2,000,000,000 of us, and a large portion of those come from prosperous countries. If we were all distributing the loaves and fishes, not only would no "kingdom seeker" starve - nobody would.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 12, 2012, 11:07:25 PM
I was refering to the "Launch that and you won't get my food" kind of attitudes of certain governments rather than some stand-alone charity groups.
Well, the attitudes of civil governments are really a separate issue from Christian charity. Feeding the hungry should be unconditional, irrespective of political/religious/social issues.
Well, when it comes to the US government, apparently, you can't even become president without at least an appearance of being a "good christian"
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 11:10:02 PM
This particular promise is toward those who "seek first the kingdom of God." I take this to mean those who make their relationship with God a priority. The promise is not to humanity as a whole, although God has provided (IMHO) for humanity. My point about distribution is simply that you can't blame God if we don't do our part. If a Christian is seeking the kingdom of God, he/she should be concerned about the less fortunate. If all Christians did this, there would be no starvation in the world. There are 2,000,000,000 of us, and a large portion of those come from prosperous countries. If we were all distributing the loaves and fishes, not only would no "kingdom seeker" starve - nobody would.
So lets not blur the lines by mixing up scenarios and points.
The intent is not to blame god.
The intent is to understand if a promise has been made and if the promise maker is fulfilling on that promise.
"This particular promise is toward those who "seek first the kingdom of God." I take this to mean those who make their relationship with God a priority."
So here we go, there is an issue with regards to defining if something is priority.
Lets say that if a person seeks first and foremost to know god, to seek the kingdom of god, to try and understand the bible then they are prioritising on this search.
Lets say they live in an impoverished country, Ethiopia maybe.
While their neighbor goes to a well and brings back water, or goes hunting for food, this person instead sits at home reading, and trying to understand the bible.
Who is it that is more like to have food and water? The bible reader of the hunter/gatherer?
If your faith is strong Bruce, I would expect you to say the person whom prioritises on reading the bible. Because Jesus infalibly stated that god will provide necessities for the seeker of god's kingdom.
If your faith is strong, you should be fighting with me tooth and nail and stating that no-one whom has prioritised on seeking god's kingdom has ever died of hunger or thirst. Therefore, of the people who have starved, it was their fault for not first seeking god's kingdom.
Great thread...lively debate.
Let's go back a few centuries:
Leviticus 20:24: "But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey..."
By the time Jesus comes round, one of two things is clear.
1) Either God lied and the "milk and honey" runneth out or the bees and cows runneth thither and yon, or
2) Jesus didn't preach the SotM in the "land of milk and honey".
From this thread:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8400.0
(I happen to think it is probably some of my best work)
And then there are the inconsistencies:
Starve yourself:Matthew 6:16-18:
Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly.Of course, Jr doesn't say how long one should fast here.
VS.Be happy, take no thought for the future.
Matthew 6:25-34:
Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on....blah blah blah...Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things....etc.Of course, the True Christian will seek the Kingdom and will get to eat if he/she does these things from the SotM:
Summary of the Sermon on the Mount:
Blessed are those that:
• Are poor in spirit
• Mourn
• Meek
• Hungry and thirsty for righteousness
• Merciful
• Pure in heart
• Peacemakers
• Persecuted for righteousness sake
• Reviled and persecuted for Jesus's sake
1. Do not hide your true self or your works
2. Follow the Laws of Moses by exceeding the Pharisees
3. Do not get angry with those that are "brothers" in Christ; agree with your adversary
4. Do not call people insulting names
5. Do not look at a woman with lust; that is adultery
6. Remove parts of your body that make you commit sins
7. Divorce makes you guilty of adultery, except if done by the woman's unfaithfulness
8. Do not swear oaths by anything; just say "Yes" or "No"
9. Do not resist the evil of others
10. Let your enemies continue to attack and exploit you
11. Love, bless and pray for those that hate you
12. If you're being sued, give them what they ask
13. If you are asked to do something, do twice as much
14. Give to those that ask of you
15. Let anyone that asks borrow from you
16. Be perfect
17. Do not be seen giving alms; be covert about it
18. Do not advertise your piety to others in an effort to seem virtuous
19. Use simple, straightforward language in your devotions, and not impressive-sounding repetitious nonsense
20. Pray a certain prayer
21. Forgive other peoples trespasses against you
22. Do not be sad when you fast; put oil on your head and wash your face
23. Accumulate heavenly treasures, like piety and virtue, and not earthly ones, because the latter are vulnerable and can easily be lost or destroyed
24. Do not try to serve both God and money; you cannot serve two masters at the same time
25. Do not concern yourself with your life, because God will do it just as he takes care of the birds and the wildflowers
26. Do not think for it will not add to your stature
27. Do not wear clothes unless God gives them to you
28. Do not judge others so you are not judged by them
29. Do not complain about a speck in someone else's eye when you have a log in your own eye
30. Do not give anything holy to anyone unworthy (referred to as pigs and dogs); it is like throwing pearls to pigs
31. Ask God and you will receive exactly what you asked for; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you
32. Do to others what you would want them to do to you
33. Even when it is awkward and troublesome for you to be virtuous, be virtuous
34. Watch out for false prophets, who are like wolves in sheep's clothing; you can recognize them by their actions
35. Do not expect to make it into the Godly Hall of Fame (Kingdom of Heaven) by bragging about what good things you have done
36. Anyone that does not do the above items is foolish
37. Anyone that does do all the above items is wise
38. The above items come from authority of God
Now you know why many so-called Christians starve to death. Jesus was a MAN...full of shit. He even KNEW that many would starve:
Matthew 7:13-14:
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: 14: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.[/b]
But never fear, all is well. Do these sayings and you become wise...hungry, perhaps, but wise:
Matthew 7:24-29:
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man...QuoteCan anyone explain the "wisdom" of Jesus here?
Nope...because there is no wisdom there.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 12, 2012, 11:19:51 PM
Well, when it comes to the US government, apparently, you can't even become president without at least an appearance of being a "good christian"
Yeah, but that really has nothing to do with the Christianity of the New Testament, which was decidedly non-political. After 2000 years, Christianity has become confused with Western or European or American politics, which is bad for both Christianity and for politics.
Quote from: Tank on May 12, 2012, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 10:46:14 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 12, 2012, 10:39:30 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on May 12, 2012, 01:13:04 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 04:44:15 AM
There is more than enough food in the world to feed all 7 billion of us. The reason people starve is because of people. God has given sufficient food, and expects us to distribute it, just like the disciples did with the loaves and fishes. We have failed, not God.
Soooo, does this mean that if you give thanks before your meal, you should be giving thanks to the people who sent it to you and not God? Only seems fair. If God doesn't get the blame for people starving, he shouldn't get the thanks for people eating.
God doesn't exist. So he isn't due any thanks for anything whatsoever.
I understand that this is the position of the vast majority of people on this forum. I'm not trying to preach here, I'm just trying to respond to the challenge presented from the perspective of a believer. Hopefully that is understood.
It also happens to be the truth.
With all due respect, none of us actually
knows what the truth is about God. Some believe, some do not. No one can claim absolute knowledge.
Quote from: Stevil on May 12, 2012, 11:42:49 PM
If your faith is strong Bruce, I would expect you to say the person whom prioritises on reading the bible. Because Jesus infalibly stated that god will provide necessities for the seeker of god's kingdom.
If your faith is strong, you should be fighting with me tooth and nail and stating that no-one whom has prioritised on seeking god's kingdom has ever died of hunger or thirst. Therefore, of the people who have starved, it was their fault for not first seeking god's kingdom.
I don't think this is an issue of blaming people for starving because they failed to seek the kingdom of God. The promise is not punitive - it does not say that if you do not seek the kingdom you will starve. It is simply a promise that if you focus on the kingdom, God will take care of you. You don't need to be worrying about tomorrow. That doesn't mean that you don't work or that you can just sit around reading the Bible and hamburgers will appear at your front door. It simply means that God will take care of you. Again, if anyone can point to a particular case where this failed, I'll be happy to consider it. But just pointing to people or even Christians in general who might have starved doesn't do the trick.
Quote from: Gawen on May 13, 2012, 12:34:04 AM
Great thread...lively debate.
QuoteCan anyone explain the "wisdom" of Jesus here?
Nope...because there is no wisdom there.
So, it's better to spend all your time worrying and fretting about things? That's great advice. It will sure make the shrinks rich. Jesus presented a paradigm for life that had a specific end - the believer/disciple could live his/her life without the constant stress of worrying about where the next meal would come from. If you can show me specifically that this promise fails, I'll listen to you. In my experience it works.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 13, 2012, 05:03:20 AM
So, it's better to spend all your time worrying and fretting about things? That's great advice. It will sure make the shrinks rich. Jesus presented a paradigm for life that had a specific end - the believer/disciple could live his/her life without the constant stress of worrying about where the next meal would come from. If you can show me specifically that this promise fails, I'll listen to you. In my experience it works.
Dispite the bad advise the bible tells us that Jesus said, we ought to take care of ourselves as if there is no god.
We ought to be very concerned with regards to the necessities of live, food, water, shelter.
Living just for today almost guarantees no future, we ought to plant crops, and build farms so that we can feed ourselves.
Food and our future ought to be top priority, not worship of some mythical invisible creature that is made of nothing and is/remains unobservable, as if it does not and has never existed.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 13, 2012, 04:51:32 AM
Quote from: Tank on May 12, 2012, 10:52:30 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 10:46:14 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 12, 2012, 10:39:30 PM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on May 12, 2012, 01:13:04 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 12, 2012, 04:44:15 AM
There is more than enough food in the world to feed all 7 billion of us. The reason people starve is because of people. God has given sufficient food, and expects us to distribute it, just like the disciples did with the loaves and fishes. We have failed, not God.
Soooo, does this mean that if you give thanks before your meal, you should be giving thanks to the people who sent it to you and not God? Only seems fair. If God doesn't get the blame for people starving, he shouldn't get the thanks for people eating.
God doesn't exist. So he isn't due any thanks for anything whatsoever.
I understand that this is the position of the vast majority of people on this forum. I'm not trying to preach here, I'm just trying to respond to the challenge presented from the perspective of a believer. Hopefully that is understood.
It also happens to be the truth.
With all due respect, none of us actually knows what the truth is about God. Some believe, some do not. No one can claim absolute knowledge.
Accountants answer, I expected nothing less, or more, for that matter. If your God concept has to squeeze itself behind such a disingenuous answer your God concept is worthless.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 13, 2012, 04:49:44 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on May 12, 2012, 11:19:51 PM
Well, when it comes to the US government, apparently, you can't even become president without at least an appearance of being a "good christian"
Yeah, but that really has nothing to do with the Christianity of the New Testament, which was decidedly non-political. After 2000 years, Christianity has become confused with Western or European or American politics, which is bad for both Christianity and for politics.
Christianity is what those who see themselves as Christians make it. As much as some would like to keep it static, constant and otherwise unchanging, it does evolve. Today, it's a many-headed Hydra, with virtually every head claiming sole ownership of the body.
Does the bible say that Jesus says the following?
- Remove parts of your body that make you commit sins
- If you're being sued, give them what they ask
- If you are asked to do something, do twice as much
- Give to those that ask of you
- Let anyone that asks borrow from you
- Be perfect
- Do not concern yourself with your life, because God will do it just as he takes care of the birds and the wildflowers
- Do not think for it will not add to your stature
I'd like to see a Christian that obeys those gems of wisdom, I'm absolutely positive that AD and Bruce do not.
With regards to
- Divorce makes you guilty of adultery, except if done by the woman's unfaithfulness
So Jesus was portrayed as sexist?
Quote from: Stevil on May 13, 2012, 05:36:18 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 13, 2012, 05:03:20 AM
So, it's better to spend all your time worrying and fretting about things? That's great advice. It will sure make the shrinks rich. Jesus presented a paradigm for life that had a specific end - the believer/disciple could live his/her life without the constant stress of worrying about where the next meal would come from. If you can show me specifically that this promise fails, I'll listen to you. In my experience it works.
Dispite the bad advise the bible tells us that Jesus said, we ought to take care of ourselves as if there is no god.
We ought to be very concerned with regards to the necessities of live, food, water, shelter.
Living just for today almost guarantees no future, we ought to plant crops, and build farms so that we can feed ourselves.
Food and our future ought to be top priority, not worship of some mythical invisible creature that is made of nothing and is/remains unobservable, as if it does not and has never existed.
Nobody said that we shouldn't plan for the future. The good advice that Jesus gave tells us not to be overcome by fear, anxiety and worry as we face the challenges of today and tomorrow. It gives hope that things will be OK, even if we face evil.
Quote from: Tank on May 13, 2012, 09:43:06 AM
If your God concept has to squeeze itself behind such a disingenuous answer your God concept is worthless.
It's not worthless to me. And I see nothing disingenuous about pointing out that we tiny humans cannot claim absolute knowledge about the origins of the universe and what may lay outside it. My concept of God is pretty expansive, actually.
Quote from: Stevil on May 13, 2012, 09:54:38 AM
Does the bible say that Jesus says the following?
- Remove parts of your body that make you commit sins
- If you're being sued, give them what they ask
- If you are asked to do something, do twice as much
- Give to those that ask of you
- Let anyone that asks borrow from you
- Be perfect
- Do not concern yourself with your life, because God will do it just as he takes care of the birds and the wildflowers
- Do not think for it will not add to your stature
I'd like to see a Christian that obeys those gems of wisdom, I'm absolutely positive that AD and Bruce do not.
With regards to
- Divorce makes you guilty of adultery, except if done by the woman's unfaithfulness
So Jesus was portrayed as sexist?
We are moving well outside the scope of the OP. But where you quote "Do not concern yourself" and "do not think," the meaning and force of those passages are, as previously discussed, not to "worry" or "have anxiety." Yes, I think those are gems of wisdom, and I attempt to put that advice into practice, with varying degrees of success.
I will comment on your first quote above, as it comes up from time to time. It comes from Matthew 5:27-30. Jesus is commenting on the Old Testament injunction against adultery, and I believe he was pointing out the futility of attempting to comply with all the requirements of the Torah by one's own effort. This is why, as you move through Matthew, Jesus one by one disassembles the requirements of the Old Testament and eventually replaces them with the New Covenant of faith in him. He removes the dietary restrictions, the Sabbath restrictions, the priestly/sacrificial restrictions, and finally replaces the whole thing. And he moves the consideration for "righteousness" from outward compliance to inward change. So Matthew can be read as a description of the progression from the Old to the New Covenant.
Once the New Covenant is instituted, righteousness (right standing with God) becomes a matter of faith, not outward compliance with the Torah. So the Christian operating under that covenant has no need to remove body parts, as his/her standing with God has been secured by grace through faith. Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament and replaced it. That's my interpretation of it, anyway.
And no, I don't think Jesus was sexist. He clearly engaged women as full human beings and elevated their status.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 13, 2012, 01:51:37 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 13, 2012, 09:43:06 AM
If your God concept has to squeeze itself behind such a disingenuous answer your God concept is worthless.
It's not worthless to me. And I see nothing disingenuous about pointing out that we tiny humans cannot claim absolute knowledge about the origins of the universe and what may lay outside it. My concept of God is pretty expansive, actually.
But you do!
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub
We are moving well outside the scope of the OP.
No we're not. The scope was broadened to include the rest of the unethical Sermon on the Mount - Stevil just picked out a portion of it; wherein Stevil has shown that God has failed Christians in the food supply portion. Taking into account that the multitude Jesus fed the fish and loaves to weren't even Christians, since then, millions of Christians and non-Christians have starved to death or gone without. The perfect god has failed the imperfect creation once again, thereby rendering the perfect god less than perfect and not good.
QuoteNobody said that we shouldn't plan for the future.
These must be those verses you conveniently overlook, or if not, suit to your own taste.
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow for tomorrow will worry about its own things, Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."
"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on..."All of the Bibles I have say Jesus said this. Take a good look at the bold, in red text. Notice "take no thought for your life" is the first instruction and then backed up with food, clothes and your body.
Taking no thought for your life for tomorrow does not mean you plan for the future.
Jesus says what Bruce wants him to say, and there is no other alternative.
QuoteSo, it's better to spend all your time worrying and fretting about things? That's great advice. It will sure make the shrinks rich. Jesus presented a paradigm for life that had a specific end - the believer/disciple could live his/her life without the constant stress of worrying about where the next meal would come from. If you can show me specifically that this promise fails, I'll listen to you. In my experience it works.
Then you are the only person I know that doesn't worry...doesn't give a frack. Anxiety is a part of everyday life. We all worry. We all get anxious. And a little anxiety is natural, normal and even helpful.
Worry, or anxiety can act as a
natural alarm system to an immediate threat. It can motivate you to foresee problems and figure out solutions. Fear and anxiety can produce the adrenaline boost one needs to confront real danger or a difficult situation. It can help you be more productive and face the big challenges in your life. It is necessary in humans for survival and adaptation, and it is not in the least harmful or dangerous.
Jesus wasn't natural so I reckon worry or anxiety should not be natural to him. However, Jesus' ministry was apocalyptic and imminent and he would have you to become less than human to gain salvation.
QuoteIt's not worthless to me. And I see nothing disingenuous about pointing out that we tiny humans cannot claim absolute knowledge about the origins of the universe and what may lay outside it. My concept of God is pretty expansive, actually.
What the origins of the universe and what may lay outside it has to do with this discussion is beyond me. As for you concept of God being expansive, that much is evident. You take much of what is said in the Bible and expand on it. If there is such an afterlife as you believe it to be, without following Jesus, adding this, subtracting that, the one of your two choices of afterlife may very well surprise you when you land in it.
Quote
I will comment on your first quote above, as it comes up from time to time. It comes from Matthew 5:27-30. Jesus is commenting on the Old Testament injunction against adultery, and I believe he was pointing out the futility of attempting to comply with all the requirements of the Torah by one's own effort. This is why, as you move through Matthew, Jesus one by one disassembles the requirements of the Old Testament and eventually replaces them with the New Covenant of faith in him. He removes the dietary restrictions, the Sabbath restrictions, the priestly/sacrificial restrictions, and finally replaces the whole thing. And he moves the consideration for "righteousness" from outward compliance to inward change. So Matthew can be read as a description of the progression from the Old to the New Covenant.
Wrong. I explain all that here:
http://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/index.php?topic=8055.0
I have never seen a Christian explain the unethical precepts of the Sermon on the Mount. I have never seen a Christian ATTEMPT all the precepts to achieve salvation. Notice how Bruce and AD and most, if not all Christians, on any DB you've ever been in sidestep some of the issues:
- Remove parts of your body that make you commit sin
- If you're being sued, give them what they ask plus more
- If you are asked to do something, do twice as much
- Give to those that ask of you
- Let anyone that asks borrow from you
- Be perfect
These are only six ways out of a plethora to gain salvation, yet no Christian I have ever heard of can do all of these. Nor do I hear them explain why Jesus orders such things and why humans cannot do them.
I shall focus on just one of the 6 above.
Matthew 5:42: Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away.
Since there is no distinction of who does the asking, it is not just a charitable contribution after all. Therefore, I ask Bruce for 2% of his income. I remind him of Matt 6:19 and – Luke 18:22.
Quote from: Tank on May 13, 2012, 02:25:40 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 13, 2012, 01:51:37 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 13, 2012, 09:43:06 AM
If your God concept has to squeeze itself behind such a disingenuous answer your God concept is worthless.
It's not worthless to me. And I see nothing disingenuous about pointing out that we tiny humans cannot claim absolute knowledge about the origins of the universe and what may lay outside it. My concept of God is pretty expansive, actually.
But you do!
Exactly. Religious gives the illusion of humility, when, really, it's a means to claim you KNOW things you couldn't possibly know.
Quote from: DeterminedJulietExactly. Religious gives the illusion of humility, when, really, it's a means to claim you KNOW things you couldn't possibly know.
It's amazing isn't it? Self deceived woowoo...
Quote from: Gawen on May 13, 2012, 03:25:23 PM
I ask Bruce for 2% of his income. I remind him of Matt 6:19 and – Luke 18:22.
Well, I'd like to ask for the other 98%
And certainly Jesus was very wise when he said
- If you are asked to do something, do twice as much
- Give to those that ask of you
As well Jesus himself advised you to not worry for tomorrow, not worry about food, water or clothes, nor to worship money.
If you prioritise on the kingdom of God, then Jesus (god) will provide it for you (somewhere in the world).
Should I PM you my bank details?
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on May 13, 2012, 03:26:12 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 13, 2012, 02:25:40 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 13, 2012, 01:51:37 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 13, 2012, 09:43:06 AM
If your God concept has to squeeze itself behind such a disingenuous answer your God concept is worthless.
It's not worthless to me. And I see nothing disingenuous about pointing out that we tiny humans cannot claim absolute knowledge about the origins of the universe and what may lay outside it. My concept of God is pretty expansive, actually.
But you do!
Exactly. Religious gives the illusion of humility, when, really, it's a means to claim you KNOW things you couldn't possibly know.
After all, it is this assumption of knowledge that has lead to the formation of the, oh so correct, Intelligent Design and Creationism.
(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whydontyou.org.uk%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F08%2Fscience_vs_creationism.png&hash=67c78d9152ee6abe35d0543bd7f15e55e3ea7ae3)
This image is perhaps a bit overused, but only because it is so right....
And it's not just knowledge that Christians (and other religions, to be fair) assume, but
absolute knowledge given to them by the "god" him/her/itself, in the form of a book or two (or a collection of books that were chosen by vote *cough cough*).
Quote from: Tank on May 13, 2012, 02:25:40 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 13, 2012, 01:51:37 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 13, 2012, 09:43:06 AM
If your God concept has to squeeze itself behind such a disingenuous answer your God concept is worthless.
It's not worthless to me. And I see nothing disingenuous about pointing out that we tiny humans cannot claim absolute knowledge about the origins of the universe and what may lay outside it. My concept of God is pretty expansive, actually.
But you do!
No, I do not. I am not claiming to have absolute knowledge. To believe something is not to claim absolute knowledge. I could be wrong. I believe in God but do not claim that I have absolute knowledge of his existence. Why is that difficult for you to accept?
Quote from: Gawen on May 13, 2012, 03:25:23 PM
Since there is no distinction of who does the asking, it is not just a charitable contribution after all. Therefore, I ask Bruce for 2% of his income. I remind him of Matt 6:19 and – Luke 18:22.
I don't have 2% left after my family, creditors and others who have asked before you take their share. If you need a little help, put your mailing address here and I'll mail you a check for what I can. Again, most of my money has already been claimed by others. But I know times are tough, so I'll try to help you out.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 13, 2012, 04:51:32 AM
With all due respect, none of us actually knows what the truth is about God. Some believe, some do not. No one can claim absolute knowledge.
But so many do, and most of them are religious. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever heard a non-religious person claim absolute knowledge of anything but people claiming a god absolutely does exist and that they know what it can do and wants is commonplace.
Quote from: Stevil on May 13, 2012, 06:39:31 PM
As well Jesus himself advised you to not worry for tomorrow, not worry about food, water or clothes, nor to worship money.
I honestly don't remember anymore, was Jesus supposed to be the one who believed the world would end in his lifetime, or was it his followers who thought the world would end in theirs? That's the only way to make sense of "don't prepare for the future" advice -- if you don't expect there to be a future.
Personally, I think "don't
fret about the future" advice is excellent, since worrying about things over which you have no control is just a waste of emotion -- not that most of us can completely avoid doing that but it's still a good idea to try.
But "don't fret" and "don't prepare" are two different things and Jesus is often made to seem as if he is suggesting both.
Quote from: Gawen on May 13, 2012, 03:11:07 PM
QuoteNobody said that we shouldn't plan for the future.
These must be those verses you conveniently overlook, or if not, suit to your own taste.
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow for tomorrow will worry about its own things, Sufficient for the day is its own trouble."
"Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on..."
All of the Bibles I have say Jesus said this. Take a good look at the bold, in red text. Notice "take no thought for your life" is the first instruction and then backed up with food, clothes and your body.
Taking no thought for your life for tomorrow does not mean you plan for the future.
Jesus says what Bruce wants him to say, and there is no other alternative.
The New King James Version says "worry" for each of these verses, including the one you have in red. This is the proper translation of the Greek
merimno, or its various forms. So the Greek does not say "take no thought" in the sense of not planning, but in the sense of not being anxious.
Anxiety and worry is a useless emotion. It saps you of your strength when you meet difficulty. It has a paralyzing effect on a person, and can lead to depression and worse. Jesus is giving advice on avoiding that pitfall, and it's advice that has worked well for me. Like everything else, I'm not perfect, but lessening the anxiety and worry in one's life is only positive, in my opinion.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 13, 2012, 07:02:20 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 13, 2012, 02:25:40 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 13, 2012, 01:51:37 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 13, 2012, 09:43:06 AM
If your God concept has to squeeze itself behind such a disingenuous answer your God concept is worthless.
It's not worthless to me. And I see nothing disingenuous about pointing out that we tiny humans cannot claim absolute knowledge about the origins of the universe and what may lay outside it. My concept of God is pretty expansive, actually.
But you do!
No, I do not. I am not claiming to have absolute knowledge. To believe something is not to claim absolute knowledge. I could be wrong. I believe in God but do not claim that I have absolute knowledge of his existence. Why is that difficult for you to accept?
Because I wouldn't accept that attitude from anybody under any circumstances. You don't have absolute knowledge (because as you point out
nobody has absolute knowledge) yet you
behave as though your knowledge is so close to absolute that it makes no practical difference in the real world. You preach to people. You believe you have a God given insight into reality. You believe that not only do you have an insight into God's will, you have chosen Christianity over all possible belief systems. Preaching is arrogant. It says 'I know better than you. You listen to me. I know best.' I don't care what you actually
say the very act of preaching to others is pretty much the ultimate in arrogance. And to spin that preaching in line with just one dogma is even worse, you deny the knowledge of all other people. And you base this behaviour on a personal revelation that is absolutely and utterly unverifiable. If a salesman came to me and tried to sell me something based on personal revelation I'd laugh in their face and I expect you would too. Yet
you expect people to accept your pitch with no verifiable 3rd party evidence whatsoever. This is going to sound harsh but this sort of behaviour comes over as monumentally arrogant and stupefyingly hypocritical.
Quote from: Tank on May 13, 2012, 08:22:10 PM
Because I wouldn't accept that attitude from anybody under any circumstances. You don't have absolute knowledge (because as you point out nobody has absolute knowledge) yet you behave as though your knowledge is so close to absolute that it makes no practical difference in the real world. You preach to people. You believe you have a God given insight into reality. You believe that not only do you have an insight into God's will, you have chosen Christianity over all possible belief systems. Preaching is arrogant. It says 'I know better than you. You listen to me. I know best.' I don't care what you actually say the very act of preaching to others is pretty much the ultimate in arrogance. And to spin that preaching in line with just one dogma is even worse, you deny the knowledge of all other people. And you base this behaviour on a personal revelation that is absolutely and utterly unverifiable. If a salesman came to me and tried to sell me something based on personal revelation I'd laugh in their face and I expect you would too. Yet you expect people to accept your pitch with no verifiable 3rd party evidence whatsoever. This is going to sound harsh but this sort of behaviour comes over as monumentally arrogant and stupefyingly hypocritical.
I wasn't aware that I had engaged in preaching here. If you are referring to people in my church, those are people who have, for the most part, experienced something that creates faith in their lives. They understand what I'm talking about, so it doesn't come across to them as a "I know best" attitude. They have their own revelations, to one degree or another. Furthermore, I don't expect people here to "accept my pitch." I'm just giving another perspective - that of a believer with a particular experience. You do sound harsh, and that's fine, if that's the way you feel. If you think I'm an arrogant hypocrite, I don't really know what to do about that, except to reject the idea. So be it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 13, 2012, 08:50:50 PM
Quote from: Tank on May 13, 2012, 08:22:10 PM
Because I wouldn't accept that attitude from anybody under any circumstances. You don't have absolute knowledge (because as you point out nobody has absolute knowledge) yet you behave as though your knowledge is so close to absolute that it makes no practical difference in the real world. You preach to people. You believe you have a God given insight into reality. You believe that not only do you have an insight into God's will, you have chosen Christianity over all possible belief systems. Preaching is arrogant. It says 'I know better than you. You listen to me. I know best.' I don't care what you actually say the very act of preaching to others is pretty much the ultimate in arrogance. And to spin that preaching in line with just one dogma is even worse, you deny the knowledge of all other people. And you base this behaviour on a personal revelation that is absolutely and utterly unverifiable. If a salesman came to me and tried to sell me something based on personal revelation I'd laugh in their face and I expect you would too. Yet you expect people to accept your pitch with no verifiable 3rd party evidence whatsoever. This is going to sound harsh but this sort of behaviour comes over as monumentally arrogant and stupefyingly hypocritical.
I wasn't aware that I had engaged in preaching here. If you are referring to people in my church, those are people who have, for the most part, experienced something that creates faith in their lives. They understand what I'm talking about, so it doesn't come across to them as a "I know best" attitude. They have their own revelations, to one degree or another. Furthermore, I don't expect people here to "accept my pitch." I'm just giving another perspective - that of a believer with a particular experience. You do sound harsh, and that's fine, if that's the way you feel. If you think I'm an arrogant hypocrite, I don't really know what to do about that, except to reject the idea. So be it.
I think this is where we arrived last time we locked horns ;D
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 13, 2012, 07:07:21 PM
Personally, I think "don't fret about the future" advice is excellent, since worrying about things over which you have no control is just a waste of emotion -- not that most of us can completely avoid doing that but it's still a good idea to try.
But "don't fret" and "don't prepare" are two different things and Jesus is often made to seem as if he is suggesting both.
I think risk management is a very important part of life.
How can you address that which you worry about?
You can resolve, mitigate, delegate, set aside a contingency or simply accept the risk.
If you don't address your risks you either get caught with your pants down or you mull and potentially lose sleep, get stressed, angry etc.
The statements from the bible aren't merely limited to the mulling aspect of "worry", but more the "don't concern yourself with these issues" as if they are either unimportant or taken care of for you (delegated).
e.g.
"Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' "For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
"But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.So in this statement it says that god is taking care of this, so you don't need to. It has been delegated to god.
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow for tomorrow will worry about its own things, Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.In this statement it says, only concern yourself with today's issues.
If worry meant to "mull", then there is no point in mulling over today's issues. But worry means to concern yourself. And it is true that some people may not have the luxury to concern themselves with tomorrow's problems, but these people are in constant fire fighting mode, it is not taken granted that they will survive the day.
But fire fighting mode is no way to live a life. Planning for the future, sorting out future worries of food, water, shelter etc is certainly a priority, once you know you will survive today.
Quote from: Stevil linkPlanning for the future, sorting out future worries of food, water, shelter etc is certainly a priority, once you know you will survive today.
And, if history is any good teacher, they will survive tomorrow and the next and the next because they MUST plan....now that they know Jesus did not, cannot or will not come back soon, as he said he would. Faith in a god that fails is folly.
Early Christianity was a death cult where no one wanted to die. Otherwise it should have died out long long ago simply due to the willing lack of basic human needs, both physically and psychologically. Today's Christianity is nothing of Christ. They claim him the greatest teacher ever to walk the face of the earth and I see none of them giving no thought to the morrow - forgoing the monthly fish fry, developing next week's sermon, planning marriage counseling for newly weds.
Bruce, I ask you if you had adhered to Jesus's words in the SotM when you were of legal adult age, would you have been in the financial difficulty you are in today? I wager you wouldn't be for you would have no need of finances.
Quote from: Gawen on May 14, 2012, 11:49:11 AM
Bruce, I ask you if you had adhered to Jesus's words in the SotM when you were of legal adult age, would you have been in the financial difficulty you are in today? I wager you wouldn't be for you would have no need of finances.
I adhered pretty well up until about age 27. Then gradually, I got sucked into "life." Right now, I'm about a 50% Christian. That's not to say anything bad about Jesus or his teachings - it says more about me than anything. Right now I'm about half dedicated to it, and that's about all the energy I have.
Wow, what a lively debate!! :D
let's just use our brains for a moment. we evolve, and times change. We used to use donkeys and horses on farms before tractors existed.
We build houses, make better ways of communication. Humans evolve. Every single day.
I am in awe how amazing and far we've come. And did "god" help this happen? No.
Humans grow smarter all on their own. We grow, we make mistakes, then grow some more.
Do you really think in this HUGE world, a god ecists and gives a fuck? With all the murderers and pyschopaths. Starving children, and abused relationships.
It is only humans here. We have proof of our existance. Our accomplishments. Not a god's.
I think the biggest mistake Christians (and other religions) make that seems to be a theme here is that too many of them claim to have knowledge of God because they think they have knowledge of the Bible, and their preacher has described God to give it personality. What they don't realize is that there are so many different versions of God on this planet, different religions, different denominations and practices, because everybody sees God through their own lens crafted through their own temperament and experiences. This makes people craft their idea of God in a way that best makes sense to them. Just the practice of believing in a God is a way of not having to be in the dark about anything. If there's something about life or the world you cannot understand, it must have something to do with God. At least Animated Dirt admits that there are many things he does not know or understand and will not attempt to explain. I just think religious folks are sort of conditioned to not like that answer, so they come up with all kinds of explanations that fit what their idea of God is. AD must be something of a scientist in that regard, which in my experience is a bit of a rarity among religious folks.
What I mean by that is a scientist is willing to admit those things he or she does not know or understand. While a scientist may hypothesize about the unknown, he or she will not regard hypothesis as fact.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 14, 2012, 07:20:29 PM
I'm about a 50% Christian
Does that mean you are 50% atheist? This makes you somewhat of a fence sitter.
If I believed in a god and eternal happiness or eternal torment, I would certainly spend all my time ensuring I got eternal happiness.
Even if it meant giving away all my money, not worrying about food, water, clothing or even tomorrow.
I'd cut my eyes out so that I don't lust, I'd waste away and die no doubt, but life is fleeting and eternity is forever.
If I believed in god as described in the bible, I wouldn't risk his viscous vengeful wrath.
But I don't believe in gods. I live my life, true to myself, true to my worldview. I don't have to please any all powerful dictator. I do as I please, I can live up to my values, an inclusive, tolerant and supportive society. I am not perfect, but I am happy how I choose to live.
Quote from: fester30 on May 16, 2012, 07:39:27 AM
I think the biggest mistake Christians (and other religions) make that seems to be a theme here is that too many of them claim to have knowledge of God because they think they have knowledge of the Bible, and their preacher has described God to give it personality.
That's what always gets me -- Xtians guessing about god based on the authority or information from the bible without taking into consideration that the people who told the stories that ended up in the bible were also guessing, the people who complied the bible were guessing and the people who say the bible was divinely inspired are guessing about that. None of them, from the first person to come up with the idea of god to the people defending that idea now are doing anything more than guessing and yet they magically
know that their guess is right.
I think this is why religious cherry-picking doesn't bother me at all, since it's all just guesswork (whether they admit it or not) why not pick this guess over that one, or substitute your own guesses for more established guesses? They all have exactly the same chance of hitting the target.
Quote from: fester30 on May 16, 2012, 07:39:27 AM
I think the biggest mistake Christians (and other religions) make that seems to be a theme here is that too many of them claim to have knowledge of God because they think they have knowledge of the Bible, and their preacher has described God to give it personality. What they don't realize is that there are so many different versions of God on this planet, different religions, different denominations and practices, because everybody sees God through their own lens crafted through their own temperament and experiences. This makes people craft their idea of God in a way that best makes sense to them. Just the practice of believing in a God is a way of not having to be in the dark about anything. If there's something about life or the world you cannot understand, it must have something to do with God. At least Animated Dirt admits that there are many things he does not know or understand and will not attempt to explain. I just think religious folks are sort of conditioned to not like that answer, so they come up with all kinds of explanations that fit what their idea of God is. AD must be something of a scientist in that regard, which in my experience is a bit of a rarity among religious folks.
What I mean by that is a scientist is willing to admit those things he or she does not know or understand. While a scientist may hypothesize about the unknown, he or she will not regard hypothesis as fact.
I appreciate that, however my noggin tells me this slight "elevation" will not last long. ;)
I have beliefs that cannot be proven. My choice is to err on the side of the possibility of God and others choice is to stick with what can be known. I've said many times and I'll repeat myself again; There is enough reason TO believe and there is just as much, if not more, reason to disbelieve. If God could be proven, Atheism would cease to exist.
Empirical proof for God would hardly be cause for every person to become a Christian...far from it, IMHO.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub
I adhered pretty well up until about age 27. Then gradually, I got sucked into "life."
I rest my case.
Quote from: Stevil on May 16, 2012, 08:40:10 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 14, 2012, 07:20:29 PM
I'm about a 50% Christian
Does that mean you are 50% atheist? This makes you somewhat of a fence sitter.
No, I meant my dedication level is about 50%. The thermometer only goes half way up.
Quote from: Stevil on May 16, 2012, 08:40:10 AM
If I believed in a god and eternal happiness or eternal torment, I would certainly spend all my time ensuring I got eternal happiness.
Even if it meant giving away all my money, not worrying about food, water, clothing or even tomorrow.
I'd cut my eyes out so that I don't lust, I'd waste away and die no doubt, but life is fleeting and eternity is forever.
If I believed in god as described in the bible, I wouldn't risk his viscous vengeful wrath.
I can tell you from personal experience that it is hard to keep that level of intensity for that many years. I think that's why in Christianity it is a matter of faith, not works or level of intensity.
Quote from: Gawen on May 16, 2012, 06:09:39 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub
I adhered pretty well up until about age 27. Then gradually, I got sucked into "life."
I rest my case.
Yes, you have proved that I am not an extremely dedicated Christian. I could have saved you lots of attorney's fees if you had told me that was your aim.
It seems younger people are usualy only religious when it is introduced to them, by adults
Quote from: Stevil on May 16, 2012, 08:40:10 AM
If I believed in a god and eternal happiness or eternal torment, I would certainly spend all my time ensuring I got eternal happiness.
Even if it meant giving away all my money, not worrying about food, water, clothing or even tomorrow.
I'd cut my eyes out so that I don't lust, I'd waste away and die no doubt, but life is fleeting and eternity is forever.
If I believed in god as described in the bible, I wouldn't risk his viscous vengeful wrath.
Luckily our ficticious God doesn't require that we spend all our time ensuring our eternal happiness.
He's ensured it for all who will accept it...as the story goes anyway.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 16, 2012, 08:17:58 PM
I can tell you from personal experience that it is hard to keep that level of intensity for that many years. I think that's why in Christianity it is a matter of faith, not works or level of intensity.
It seems that you have doubts that your god exists, and hence are taking care of "life" as both you and I think you must.
You are disobeying Jesus' wisdom because, like me, you don't think it is good advise. You realise it would lead to death.
Otherwise, I can't think of why you don't follow the wisdom, especially given that eternal damnation awaits
He just wants you to opress other's basic human rights, correct?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 16, 2012, 08:42:43 PM
Quote from: Stevil on May 16, 2012, 08:40:10 AM
If I believed in a god and eternal happiness or eternal torment, I would certainly spend all my time ensuring I got eternal happiness.
Even if it meant giving away all my money, not worrying about food, water, clothing or even tomorrow.
I'd cut my eyes out so that I don't lust, I'd waste away and die no doubt, but life is fleeting and eternity is forever.
If I believed in god as described in the bible, I wouldn't risk his viscous vengeful wrath.
Luckily our ficticious God doesn't require that we spend all our time ensuring our eternal happiness.
He's ensured it for all who will accept it...as the story goes anyway.
Well, no.
It seems many Christians are ignoring what the bible tells us what Jesus said.
You seem to think god allows you to interpret his message however seems fit to your own wants and desires.
It has been quite clearly shown that there is no safety in numbers. If all the people are disobedient then the god is quite happy to foresake them all, as he did in the great flood.
Jesus said to first and foremost seek the kingdom of god, not to worry about food, water or clothing and that god would provide.
It is so very clear, and yet, Christians do not heed this wisdom, they interpret it or ignore it away.
Quote from: Stevil on May 16, 2012, 10:10:09 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 16, 2012, 08:42:43 PM
Quote from: Stevil on May 16, 2012, 08:40:10 AM
If I believed in a god and eternal happiness or eternal torment, I would certainly spend all my time ensuring I got eternal happiness.
Even if it meant giving away all my money, not worrying about food, water, clothing or even tomorrow.
I'd cut my eyes out so that I don't lust, I'd waste away and die no doubt, but life is fleeting and eternity is forever.
If I believed in god as described in the bible, I wouldn't risk his viscous vengeful wrath.
Luckily our ficticious God doesn't require that we spend all our time ensuring our eternal happiness.
He's ensured it for all who will accept it...as the story goes anyway.
Well, no.
It seems many Christians are ignoring what the bible tells us what Jesus said.
You seem to think god allows you to interpret his message however seems fit to your own wants and desires.
It has been quite clearly shown that there is no safety in numbers. If all the people are disobedient then the god is quite happy to foresake them all, as he did in the great flood.
Jesus said to first and foremost seek the kingdom of god, not to worry about food, water or clothing and that god would provide.
It is so very clear, and yet, Christians do not heed this wisdom, they interpret it or ignore it away.
I can't help notice that your interpretation of a fictional character's wisdom, in a fairytale book, pointing to a fairytale diety, is the "right" interpretation.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 16, 2012, 10:17:51 PM
I can't help notice that your interpretation of a fictional character's wisdom, in a fairytale book, pointing to a fairytale diety, is the "right" interpretation.
Am I right? Wow.
If you need any more scripture advice, then I guess I'm the man, I call a spade a spade, no twists and turns here folks.
I just read the words for what they are, I don't twist them.
I can easily just read it as it is because it comes with no implications on myself.
I.E. if it says not to worry about food, I am under no obligation to follow because I don't believe it. It's just a fictional story (not a fairytale) and has no bearing on my life.
But if you do believe it to be the inspired word of a god that must be followed then you are in a pickle.
If you don't worry about food then you and your family will starve to death, unless of course Jesus/god follows through on their promise to give these to those whom priorotise on seeking the kingdom of heaven. But neither you nor me believe that Jesus/god will follow through on this promise. We both put great personal effort into ensuring our families are feed and clothed, we don't delegate to the unobservable god. This is our number one priority, unless of course we face something that immediately threatens our lives e.g burning building etc.
You can go off like Bruce did and state that god only promised with regards to food production rather than distribution, but nowhere in the bible does it state this. It just says that these things will be added to you. Now if I live in Ethiopia where there is not enough food and prioritise on seeking the kingdom of god and then find out that god has gone and produced ample food in America, then as I lie starving to death, I would wonder what sick joke this god has made, to give me advice that leads to my death.
I would be keen to hear your interpretation AD. How these words of Jesus were wise and ought to be followed by yourself.
Are you going with Bruce's idea of food production as opposed to food distribution as interpreted by Bruce? Are you going with the literal approach (which is what I have done) based on the words in the book? or do you have something else, maybe some vague reference to another part of the book, or an imagined concept that was left out of the book so that you could inject your answer in there?
I know you previously stated you don't know, and that seems reasonable to me, but why do you think my position is an interpretation rather than a literal reading?
Quote from: Stevil on May 16, 2012, 08:47:53 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 16, 2012, 08:17:58 PM
I can tell you from personal experience that it is hard to keep that level of intensity for that many years. I think that's why in Christianity it is a matter of faith, not works or level of intensity.
It seems that you have doubts that your god exists, and hence are taking care of "life" as both you and I think you must.
You are disobeying Jesus' wisdom because, like me, you don't think it is good advise. You realise it would lead to death.
Otherwise, I can't think of why you don't follow the wisdom, especially given that eternal damnation awaits
I think you are interpreting my statements in the wrong way. Not sure how to fix this, hmmm. I believe that my God exists. All believers, if they are honest, have some doubts. That's part of faith. Like I've said before, I don't interpret the New Testament as teaching eternal suffering - it looks more like annihilation/cessation of existence to me. All that is required for salvation is faith in Jesus, which I have. Following every commandment 100% is not part of the package, so to speak. I do attempt to love others, which is Jesus' great commandment. All I'm saying is that my dedication level is not what it used to be. I'm not St. Paul, IOW.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 17, 2012, 12:00:34 AM
All that is required for salvation is faith in Jesus, which I have.
So you don't need to follow the ten or so commandments, you don't need to follow Jesus/god's wisdom?
You just need to believe that there was a man/god called Jesus or Joseph or something like that?
You can be a murderous sadistic rapist, but as long as you believe in the existence of this man/god then you get to live for eternity (after the period of non existence between when you die and when Jesus resurrects you) rather than perish along with the horrible non believers?
And this all makes sense to you?
Quote from: Stevil on May 17, 2012, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 17, 2012, 12:00:34 AM
All that is required for salvation is faith in Jesus, which I have.
So you don't need to follow the ten or so commandments, you don't need to follow Jesus/god's wisdom?
You just need to believe that there was a man/god called Jesus or Joseph or something like that?
You can be a murderous sadistic rapist, but as long as you believe in the existence of this man/god then you get to live for eternity (after the period of non existence between when you die and when Jesus resurrects you) rather than perish along with the horrible non believers?
And this all makes sense to you?
In the New Covenant, God's commandments are to believe in Jesus and love one another. I John 3:23. That makes a lot of sense to me: simple faith in God and loving action toward one's fellow man. I have no desire to be a murderous sadistic rapist, and I doubt that anyone who sincerely attempts to "love one another" has such a desire, either. Hard to imagine wanting to love others and at the same time rape and murder them. Perhaps it has happened, but those are not tendencies that I have found in myself.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 17, 2012, 01:38:26 AM
In the New Covenant, God's commandments are to believe in Jesus and love one another. I John 3:23. That makes a lot of sense to me: simple faith in God and loving action toward one's fellow man. I have no desire to be a murderous sadistic rapist, and I doubt that anyone who sincerely attempts to "love one another" has such a desire, either. Hard to imagine wanting to love others and at the same time rape and murder them. Perhaps it has happened, but those are not tendencies that I have found in myself.
Not accusing you of wanting to rape and murder,
Just trying to understand what the requirement is with regards to getting the reward of being brought back from the dead to roam New Earth for an eternity.
You stated that the requirement was faith in Jesus, so I am exploring that, but you haven't answered.
I feel faith in Jesus must lead to some more requirements, more so than simply believing in your head, but I don't know what the Christian belief is, so I am asking.
If belief is the only requirement, then I would also like to know why belief is important? Why wouldn't the god resurrect the unbeliever?
How can it make sense?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 17, 2012, 01:38:26 AM
Quote from: Stevil on May 17, 2012, 12:13:55 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 17, 2012, 12:00:34 AM
All that is required for salvation is faith in Jesus, which I have.
So you don't need to follow the ten or so commandments, you don't need to follow Jesus/god's wisdom?
You just need to believe that there was a man/god called Jesus or Joseph or something like that?
You can be a murderous sadistic rapist, but as long as you believe in the existence of this man/god then you get to live for eternity (after the period of non existence between when you die and when Jesus resurrects you) rather than perish along with the horrible non believers?
And this all makes sense to you?
In the New Covenant, God's commandments are to believe in Jesus and love one another. I John 3:23. That makes a lot of sense to me: simple faith in God and loving action toward one's fellow man. I have no desire to be a murderous sadistic rapist, and I doubt that anyone who sincerely attempts to "love one another" has such a desire, either. Hard to imagine wanting to love others and at the same time rape and murder them. Perhaps it has happened, but those are not tendencies that I have found in myself.
I've heard stories of murderers and child molestors in prison who tur to bed. And they have church in jails.
These less than human beings dont deserve church or prayer. When their vicitims give it to them, it shows how dellussional.
Love thy enemy?
How about not. How about, you have the right to get angry and know in your heart if a god existed that allowed this, he is not worthy of your time.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 17, 2012, 03:36:40 AM
When their vicitims give it to them, it shows how dellussional.
Love thy enemy?
How about not.
I have not walked in a victim's shoes, I can't possibly understand what it would be like.
From my ignorant perspective,
A victim needs to forgive, not with regards to giving the attacker forgiveness, but with regards to letting go of the hate brewing inside the self. The attacker deserves nothing, certainly not any further thought within the victim's head, for this thought perpetuates the crime and torments the victim.
The victim needs to let go, to move on, to pickup the pieces as best as they can. Vengeance and justice are mere day dreams, illusions of some sort of expectation of cosmic justice.
To forgive is to free the self, to put thoughts on to more important things and people other than the attacker. The attacker is nothing, not the scum on a dirty shoe nor the crud in an old washing machine. Nothing. Maybe attackers hurt people because they want to feel alive, want to know that they exist.
Eradicating them from all thoughts, they will cease to exist (from the victim's perspective), cease to be part of the victim's life.
They don't deserve to be part of the victim's life, the victim is not defined by the attack or the attacker, the attacker is less than meaningless.
Anyway, easier said than done.
Quote from: Stevil on May 17, 2012, 01:52:14 AM
Not accusing you of wanting to rape and murder,
Just trying to understand what the requirement is with regards to getting the reward of being brought back from the dead to roam New Earth for an eternity.
You stated that the requirement was faith in Jesus, so I am exploring that, but you haven't answered.
I feel faith in Jesus must lead to some more requirements, more so than simply believing in your head, but I don't know what the Christian belief is, so I am asking.
If belief is the only requirement, then I would also like to know why belief is important? Why wouldn't the god resurrect the unbeliever?
How can it make sense?
Here's my understanding of how it works. 1. God's grace and revelation is extended to a person; 2. That effects a change in that person, creating faith; 3. With that faith, that person is considered "saved" by God (using biblical language); 4. The change effected in the person in his/her encounter with God is manifested by that person adopting a n attitude of love toward others; 5. that love becomes the person's primary ethical foundation, guiding that person's behavior.
So, only faith is required for salvation, but the entire encoutner with God also results in behavior guided by love.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 17, 2012, 03:57:20 PM
Here's my understanding of how it works. 1. God's grace and revelation is extended to a person; 2. That effects a change in that person, creating faith; 3. With that faith, that person is considered "saved" by God (using biblical language); 4. The change effected in the person in his/her encounter with God is manifested by that person adopting a n attitude of love toward others; 5. that love becomes the person's primary ethical foundation, guiding that person's behavior.
So, only faith is required for salvation, but the entire encoutner with God also results in behavior guided by love.
OK, thanks for explaining.
You talk about Christians having an adopted attitude of love.
From my perspective:
Atheists are more tolerant of other people and their lifestyles (you don't get organised groups of atheists protesting against same sex marriage, against women having prominent positions of authority)
Atheists are more accepting of diversity (you don't get atheists putting worldview declarations on public money, into public court systems, into schools)
Atheists are more likely to be non judgemental, we don't have black and white rules, we don't believe in objective morality, we understand life is complex. We don't consider people to be sinners, if people's actions don't put us or society in danger then we don't tend to judge.
Atheists are more respecting of the individuals rights (You don't get organised groups of atheists protesting against abortion, against polygomy, against movies with theistic or atheistic themes)
So in my opinion an atheist is more likely to be tolerant, accepting, non judgmental and respecting. These are all aspects of love.
So if we were to measure the love on an ungodly atheist against a faithful Christian, well, in general I feel the atheist is more loving.
I think ideologues are almost by definition intolerant and tend to have a compassion deficit. There are atheistic zealots as well as religious zealots. In some cases the former are zealots about atheism (I'D include my bête noire Dawkins in this camp ) in other cases they hold non- religious beliefs with the same irrational fervour as religious bigots.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 17, 2012, 01:38:26 AM
In the New Covenant, God's commandments are to believe in Jesus and love one another. I John 3:23. That makes a lot of sense to me: simple faith in God and loving action toward one's fellow man. I have no desire to be a murderous sadistic rapist, and I doubt that anyone who sincerely attempts to "love one another" has such a desire, either. Hard to imagine wanting to love others and at the same time rape and murder them. Perhaps it has happened, but those are not tendencies that I have found in myself.
But then there's Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
You can't just cast aside the law and original commandments. The new covenant is there to keep believers from having to sacrifice a lamb every year, not so that they can ignore the old law.
Quote from: Stevil on May 17, 2012, 09:54:32 PM
So in my opinion an atheist is more likely to be tolerant, accepting, non judgmental and respecting. These are all aspects of love.
So if we were to measure the love on an ungodly atheist against a faithful Christian, well, in general I feel the atheist is more loving.
I'm not going to try to defend Christians in general on these points. I do know some who come pretty close to Christ's teachings on love. It is an ideal that is, IMHO, worth striving for. If you can reach that goal without faith, I can't say anything negative about your behavior. For me, faith is part of that ideal, but that's just me.
Quote from: fester30 on May 17, 2012, 11:05:48 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 17, 2012, 01:38:26 AM
In the New Covenant, God's commandments are to believe in Jesus and love one another. I John 3:23. That makes a lot of sense to me: simple faith in God and loving action toward one's fellow man. I have no desire to be a murderous sadistic rapist, and I doubt that anyone who sincerely attempts to "love one another" has such a desire, either. Hard to imagine wanting to love others and at the same time rape and murder them. Perhaps it has happened, but those are not tendencies that I have found in myself.
But then there's Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
You can't just cast aside the law and original commandments. The new covenant is there to keep believers from having to sacrifice a lamb every year, not so that they can ignore the old law.
Yeah, I've argued my interpretation of this over and over. Jesus came to fulfill, and he accomplished what he came for. Therefore, the law and the prophets "passed away." That's why he could make the new covenant. The law and prophets no longer apply, as they were fulfilled in Jesus. That's my take on it.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 18, 2012, 02:11:17 AM
Quote from: Stevil on May 17, 2012, 09:54:32 PM
So in my opinion an atheist is more likely to be tolerant, accepting, non judgmental and respecting. These are all aspects of love.
So if we were to measure the love on an ungodly atheist against a faithful Christian, well, in general I feel the atheist is more loving.
I'm not going to try to defend Christians in general on these points. I do know some who come pretty close to Christ's teachings on love. It is an ideal that is, IMHO, worth striving for. If you can reach that goal without faith, I can't say anything negative about your behavior. For me, faith is part of that ideal, but that's just me.
It seems a bit disappointing to me to see intolerance born of organisations or religious teachings where naturally that intolerance wouldn't have existed.
e.g. go onto atheist forums and see if people are anti homosexual, the vast, vast majority couldn't care less what people do consensually in the privacy of their own homes.
But go to religious forums and you find a large amount of people who are strongly against letting people live certain lifestyles.
I liken atheism to be the "natural" position, simply because we don't have teachings or guides or coordinated communities. We just behave and think how each of us individually think we ought to (of course influenced by society and culture etc)
So naturally people are tolerant, after a certain age of course. It takes teaching to move us away from this position, and this is why people belonging to a church or religion tend to have a biassed way of thinking, -different from other co-ordinated groups and different from the uncoordinated groups.
When I see a nun's habbit or a priest's white collar I don't see it any different to swastika or a KKK pointy hat or a skin heads bald head. Symbols of hate groups.
I know this is probably unfair on religion because not all religious subscribe to the hate, but there is certainly an "unnaturally" high proportion of hate in those groups.
Quote from: Stevil on May 17, 2012, 03:58:22 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 17, 2012, 03:36:40 AM
When their vicitims give it to them, it shows how dellussional.
Love thy enemy?
How about not.
I have not walked in a victim's shoes, I can't possibly understand what it would be like.
From my ignorant perspective,
A victim needs to forgive, not with regards to giving the attacker forgiveness, but with regards to letting go of the hate brewing inside the self. The attacker deserves nothing, certainly not any further thought within the victim's head, for this thought perpetuates the crime and torments the victim.
The victim needs to let go, to move on, to pickup the pieces as best as they can. Vengeance and justice are mere day dreams, illusions of some sort of expectation of cosmic justice.
To forgive is to free the self, to put thoughts on to more important things and people other than the attacker. The attacker is nothing, not the scum on a dirty shoe nor the crud in an old washing machine. Nothing. Maybe attackers hurt people because they want to feel alive, want to know that they exist.
Eradicating them from all thoughts, they will cease to exist (from the victim's perspective), cease to be part of the victim's life.
They don't deserve to be part of the victim's life, the victim is not defined by the attack or the attacker, the attacker is less than meaningless.
Anyway, easier said than done.
I agree with this :)
Don't get me wrong, i didnt mean grew bitter and plot revenge. Obviously every crime affects people differently.
I agree to not forgive per say, but to "let go and move on"
You are totally right. They are worth nothing.
But i cant shake the feeling a religious person saying "love thy enemy". It means something different.
Quote from: Stevil on May 18, 2012, 02:30:35 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 18, 2012, 02:11:17 AM
Quote from: Stevil on May 17, 2012, 09:54:32 PM
So in my opinion an atheist is more likely to be tolerant, accepting, non judgmental and respecting. These are all aspects of love.
So if we were to measure the love on an ungodly atheist against a faithful Christian, well, in general I feel the atheist is more loving.
I'm not going to try to defend Christians in general on these points. I do know some who come pretty close to Christ's teachings on love. It is an ideal that is, IMHO, worth striving for. If you can reach that goal without faith, I can't say anything negative about your behavior. For me, faith is part of that ideal, but that's just me.
It seems a bit disappointing to me to see intolerance born of organisations or religious teachings where naturally that intolerance wouldn't have existed.
e.g. go onto atheist forums and see if people are anti homosexual, the vast, vast majority couldn't care less what people do consensually in the privacy of their own homes.
But go to religious forums and you find a large amount of people who are strongly against letting people live certain lifestyles.
I liken atheism to be the "natural" position, simply because we don't have teachings or guides or coordinated communities. We just behave and think how each of us individually think we ought to (of course influenced by society and culture etc)
So naturally people are tolerant, after a certain age of course. It takes teaching to move us away from this position, and this is why people belonging to a church or religion tend to have a biassed way of thinking, -different from other co-ordinated groups and different from the uncoordinated groups.
When I see a nun's habbit or a priest's white collar I don't see it any different to swastika or a KKK pointy hat or a skin heads bald head. Symbols of hate groups.
I know this is probably unfair on religion because not all religious subscribe to the hate, but there is certainly an "unnaturally" high proportion of hate in those groups.
We were born without religion anyway.
Atheists are nice, mean, whatever. But at least they have the guts to admit their feelings are their own, based on experience and life. They dont use an old out dated book, or fictional god as a scapegoat for their hatred and biggotry.
I feel a bit disgusted when i see preists and nuns in person as well. Rabbis especially, because the jewish teachings can be bad, if not worse than christianity.
There is a big scandal going on in NYC at the moment, because a Rabbi in a brooklyn community is being accused of child molestation by several girls....
I'm so disgusted by this, but more so because everyone is defending him, saying its impossible to think such a "holy man of god could do such a thing."
This is exactly why i cant stand idiots who believe in gods.
They feel so holier than thou. They can do no wrong. Ugh!
I'm tired of people, especially children suffering because of religion. It brings me to tears..
Quote from: Stevil on May 16, 2012, 11:41:50 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 16, 2012, 10:17:51 PM
I can't help notice that your interpretation of a fictional character's wisdom, in a fairytale book, pointing to a fairytale diety, is the "right" interpretation.
Am I right? Wow.
You're as right as one can be from a superficial knowledge of the teachings of Christ.
If the whole of God's/Jesus' teaching was this or a one-liner, then I would consider you a biblical scholar and believe more as you do. However in today's age, one doesn't necessarily NEED to study the whole bible to get the point of the WHOLE word of God. If one doesn't want to study something they don't believe in, then at least look up what the general interpretation is from those that do study this text. It's one or two g00gle searches away.
Cliff notes for the bible?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 18, 2012, 04:44:39 PM
You're as right as one can be from a superficial knowledge of the teachings of Christ.
If the whole of God's/Jesus' teaching was this or a one-liner, then I would consider you a biblical scholar and believe more as you do. However in today's age, one doesn't necessarily NEED to study the whole bible to get the point of the WHOLE word of God. If one doesn't want to study something they don't believe in, then at least look up what the general interpretation is from those that do study this text. It's one or two g00gle searches away.
The problem as I see it, is that the religious folk, they don't actually read the bible. They don't look at the words spoken by their beloved Jesus, they don't look at the actions of their beloved god.
They cling to assertions.
God created everything
God is Good
God is perfect
If it were asserted that Hitler was god, then the Christians would interpret Hitler's actions as perfect and loving and that the Jews were horrid and evil and deserved to die.
When the God killed everyone in the great flood, that IMHO is worse than what Hitler ever did.
God killed almost everyone, all races, all cultures, all animals, all plants.
When god killed the Egyptian first born males just to prove that He exists, well how is that not as horrid as Saddam killing the Kurds or Hitler killing Jews?
...but then again, as you say, I don't know the context, that God is perfect, good and loving... I am merely getting confused by the words written in the bible, I shouldn't be reading the words, I should be clinging to the unfounded, untested, unmeasurable assertions and just believe....
It seems to me that a strong part of Christianity is that you can just make things up, whatever interpretation that makes you comfortable. Of course it doesn't have to be the correct answer, Just enough of an interpretation to allow you to swallow this big ugly course dry pill that is naturally incompatible with your throat and stomach.
Quote from: Stevil on May 18, 2012, 09:08:53 PM
The problem as I see it, is that the religious folk, they don't actually read the bible. They don't look at the words spoken by their beloved Jesus, they don't look at the actions of their beloved god.
They cling to assertions.
God created everything
God is Good
God is perfect
I can certainly agree with you on this problem. I cannot, as Bruce has mentioned the same idea, attempt to defend Christians and their actions in general.
Quote from: StevilIf it were asserted that Hitler was god, then the Christians would interpret Hitler's actions as perfect and loving and that the Jews were horrid and evil and deserved to die.
It's impossible to assert Hitler as God since Hitler is human and so prone to human failings.
Quote from: StevilWhen the God killed everyone in the great flood, that IMHO is worse than what Hitler ever did.
God killed almost everyone, all races, all cultures, all animals, all plants.
If one believes in a global flood...which I think more Christaians reject rather than support (I would hope at least). But first and foremost is that if God is the Creator, then what right do you (or me) have to dictate how the Creator deals with that which He created? So we see here that when one sets out to define and/or interpret this God (the Abrahamic God), one needs to make the argument in light of the whole and not just part. The "whole" would include taking into account that this God made everything....and all that follows.
Quote from: StevilWhen god killed the Egyptian first born males just to prove that He exists, well how is that not as horrid as Saddam killing the Kurds or Hitler killing Jews?
Again...if he is God and therefore Creator of the cosmos, then there is right and wrong that is dictated by Him. To go against that which sustains life is to die. It's logical, not emotional. If God acted on emotion, He would turn every heart towards Him and no one would ever die. But that's apparently impossible as God is all-loving AND all-Justice in one. Another point that would need to be taken into account on interpreting this God.
Quote from: Stevil...but then again, as you say, I don't know the context, that God is perfect, good and loving... I am merely getting confused by the words written in the bible, I shouldn't be reading the words, I should be clinging to the unfounded, untested, unmeasurable assertions and just believe....
Nope. You miss seeing the forest for the trees. In order to make a more educated interpretation of this fairytale, at least gather all the information on the fairytale before making a broad-brushed interpretation on it based on selected words therein.
Even having the correct interpretation of God does not mean one must submit to this God. It's quite possible to know God and still reject Him. The Satan character proves this possible.
Your way of thinking is seriously frightening, AD.
The fact that you see nothing wrong with "how god deals witg his creations." ...yikes
So if he were to go on a killing spree, you wouldnt protest, because he is god and therefore perfect? Ooookay....
(serial killers seem to be very similar to your god.)
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 18, 2012, 10:01:20 PM
Your way of thinking is seriously frightening, AD.
The fact that you see nothing wrong with "how god deals witg his creations." ...yikes
So if he were to go on a killing spree, you wouldnt protest, because he is god and therefore perfect? Ooookay....
(serial killers seem to be very similar to your god.)
I appreciate your thoughts, but while you may think a "killing spree" is how God acts out for fun, it's totally different from serial killers as we know them to be.
Once again, I can see why one might think this way, but when given the whole and in context, it's not as you see it. The context being that this God is THE one and only God and made everything.
If this is so, that He created everything...in the most basic thinking then, what right does the created have to pronounce what is "right" vs "wrong" against that which gave it life?
A serial killer, as you are suggesting, is nothing but an equal killing other equals. God is not our equal IF HE IS CREATOR. So while there is much more than this simple point, one can see that deaths that we may not understand are not the same thing.
One is certainly given the right to disagree, but don't disagree and give the reasons for it being wrong without understanding what you're talking about first. We may disagree on capital punishment, but in context certain crimes deserving certain punishments, we can see the "logic" even if we disagree with the punishment.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 18, 2012, 09:55:44 PM
It's impossible to assert Hitler as God since Hitler is human and so prone to human failings.
Same could be said for Jesus
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 18, 2012, 10:16:02 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 18, 2012, 10:01:20 PM
Your way of thinking is seriously frightening, AD.
The fact that you see nothing wrong with "how god deals witg his creations." ...yikes
So if he were to go on a killing spree, you wouldnt protest, because he is god and therefore perfect? Ooookay....
(serial killers seem to be very similar to your god.)
I appreciate your thoughts, but while you may think a "killing spree" is how God acts out for fun, it's totally different from serial killers as we know them to be.
Once again, I can see why one might think this way, but when given the whole and in context, it's not as you see it. The context being that this God is THE one and only God and made everything.
If this is so, that He created everything...in the most basic thinking then, what right does the created have to pronounce what is "right" vs "wrong" against that which gave it life?
A serial killer, as you are suggesting, is nothing but an equal killing other equals. God is not our equal IF HE IS CREATOR. So while there is much more than this simple point, one can see that deaths that we may not understand are not the same thing.
One is certainly given the right to disagree, but don't disagree and give the reasons for it being wrong without understanding what you're talking about first. We may disagree on capital punishment, but in context certain crimes deserving certain punishments, we can see the "logic" even if we disagree with the punishment.
This is your
version of god. As many other gods and religions exists that have more than one god.
To me, this is more of your perspective, than your god's. And that's why it's scary.
Quote from: Stevil on May 18, 2012, 11:03:36 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 18, 2012, 09:55:44 PM
It's impossible to assert Hitler as God since Hitler is human and so prone to human failings.
Same could be said for Jesus
Mmm...yes, yes you could...if Jesus is just a human. Hitler, to my knowledge, made no claim to be Creator of this universe and by that authority he was "cleansing" the world of Jews, did he? Hitler didn't die an innocent man.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 18, 2012, 11:12:21 PM
This is your version of god. As many other gods and religions exists that have more than one god.
To me, this is more of your perspective, than your god's. And that's why it's scary.
To be clear, it's not my personal perspective in the sense that I simply made it up. It's my perspective based on the whole of the fairytale book. My point to Stevil is that one cannot interpret anything based on one line if there is quite a bit more than that one line available to make a more educated interpretation.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 18, 2012, 11:26:02 PM
Mmm...yes, yes you could...if Jesus is just a human.
You won't know until your dead if that's the case or not so why bother saying that he was anything more? We don't know if the person really existed and the closest we have got from evidence is a "probably yes" to a "probably not", no one really knows the truth on this subject, so why second guess when you are probably like me and are far from qualified and have never studied the original source materials to make an educated decision. You think its true therefore its true to you, leave it at that.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 18, 2012, 09:55:44 PM
Quote from: StevilWhen the God killed everyone in the great flood, that IMHO is worse than what Hitler ever did.
God killed almost everyone, all races, all cultures, all animals, all plants.
If one believes in a global flood...which I think more Christaians reject rather than support (I would hope at least). But first and foremost is that if God is the Creator, then what right do you (or me) have to dictate how the Creator deals with that which He created? So we see here that when one sets out to define and/or interpret this God (the Abrahamic God), one needs to make the argument in light of the whole and not just part. The "whole" would include taking into account that this God made everything....and all that follows.
Quote from: StevilWhen god killed the Egyptian first born males just to prove that He exists, well how is that not as horrid as Saddam killing the Kurds or Hitler killing Jews?
Again...if he is God and therefore Creator of the cosmos, then there is right and wrong that is dictated by Him. To go against that which sustains life is to die. It's logical, not emotional. If God acted on emotion, He would turn every heart towards Him and no one would ever die. But that's apparently impossible as God is all-loving AND all-Justice in one. Another point that would need to be taken into account on interpreting this God.
Thanks for being open and honest in your response.
QuoteBBut first and foremost is that if God is the Creator, then what right do you (or me) have to dictate how the Creator deals with that which He created?
1) IF there was a creator
2) IF your God is the Creator
3) IF that creator deals with its creations
a) A believer has no right to dictate to his/her creator any more than a marionette has the right to dictate to its creator. If one believes in the Biblical God, then one must know there is no free will (only the illusion of free will), not unlike a marionette. There is enough Biblical support to know that nothing comes or happens except by the Biblical God. "In the beginning, there was the Word..." for example. Even the Jesus character was predestined to live and die in the story, all towards God's great plan...which no believer has the right to question...or even knows.
So one has the God of the Hebrew Bible, the Usurper Saul/Paul and the late, extremely questionable writings of the Gospels all packed into an ambiguously, confusingly and contradictorily written tome full of superstition and selected by those who had the power, wanted power, had an axe to grind and then made Holy upon pain of death or excommunication. THIS is what believers put their faith into.
So badly written by men with this God guiding their pen is this tome. Believers have no choice but to pick and choose. Never mind the lasting forever covenants of this God with His chosen people. Never mind Jesus was the MAN and what he tells you to do to achieve salvation. Never mind what the misogynist, introverted, and quite likely psycho Paul would have you do. Never mind that one cherry picks. Just remember that it's all predestined, right or wrong in the fact that no believer knows this god's plan and how he/she fits within it. All for the glory in Him and the promise that you won't be spending an eternity of torture away from His Most High Benevolence.
How truly sad it all is...
God is your imaginary friend. Not mine.
We live in a world where we are still learning, every single day. Humans live in societies. Your dellusions shouldnt be affecting the laws in human society; especially when you have no ability to prove a god(s) exist. This is how life becomes dangerous.
The whole "believe or die" attitude.
Quote from: Gawen on May 19, 2012, 03:44:10 PM
QuoteBBut first and foremost is that if God is the Creator, then what right do you (or me) have to dictate how the Creator deals with that which He created?
1) IF there was a creator
2) IF your God is the Creator
3) IF that creator deals with its creations
a) A believer has no right to dictate to his/her creator any more than a marionette has the right to dictate to its creator.
Even given all those IFs, I can't agree that it would or should be so that the creation cannot doubt, question or fault its creator. Particularly when the creation is another sentient being, in which case its more like a parent and child than just a thing and a tinkerer.
Most people I know think it would be morally lax not to question the way some parents treat their children, regardless of the rules those parents have set up in their own households about right and wrong, and they would certainly support the child's questioning and rebellion.
Assuming all the IFs are true, questioning or rebelling against a creator god is just taking that one step up.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 19, 2012, 05:49:30 PM
Even given all those IFs, I can't agree that it would or should be so that the creation cannot doubt, question or fault its creator. Particularly when the creation is another sentient being, in which case its more like a parent and child than just a thing and a tinkerer.
Most people I know think it would be morally lax not to question the way some parents treat their children, regardless of the rules those parents have set up in their own households about right and wrong, and they would certainly support the child's questioning and rebellion.
Assuming all the IFs are true, questioning or rebelling against a creator god is just taking that one step up.
Yup, the wife and I created two beautiful little girls.
I certainly don't think that gives me the right to harm them in any way. My government agrees, and would lock me up and take them away from me if I were to do such a thing. Creation does not denote ownership.
As a creator/parent I have certain responsibilities to take care of, and to provide the necessities for my children. I don't care if they believe in me or not, if they love me or hate me, it makes no difference, I have these responsibilities, these obligations and I have no choice but to take care of my children.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 18, 2012, 09:55:44 PM
If one believes in a global flood...which I think more Christaians reject rather than support (I would hope at least).
Yet another story (Genesis as well) that people believed was literal, up until the point that science proved it was impossible, then all of a sudden it becomes figurative or something that requires much interpretation.
So for over 1,000 years people had no way of knowing that it wasn't literal, how many generation of people is that, whom were deceived by god's inspired word in the bible?
God, the great deceiver, or is that Satan's title? Hmmmm are we sure the bible is god's inspired word and not Satan's? How can we know for sure?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 18, 2012, 09:55:44 PM
Again...if he is God and therefore Creator of the cosmos, then there is right and wrong that is dictated by Him.
If right and wrong is dictated by god, then why do his followers interpret away things that he clearly has stated is wrong?
Those that disobey the Sabbath, the bible tells us that god thinks they should be put to death.
Non virgin women whom marry, "put to death" the god says.
And yet, Christians read this and then decide, Hmmm, a perfect and loving god can't possibly mean what he says here. Maybe death means something else, surely it must. May he means that we are allowed to work on the sabbath, maybe he means that non virgin women are allowed to get married. Yes, that's what he meant. Praise the lord and his infinite wisdom!
Quote from: Stevil on May 19, 2012, 09:08:15 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 18, 2012, 09:55:44 PM
If one believes in a global flood...which I think more Christaians reject rather than support (I would hope at least).
Yet another story (Genesis as well) that people believed was literal, up until the point that science proved it was impossible, then all of a sudden it becomes figurative or something that requires much interpretation.
So for over 1,000 years people had no way of knowing that it wasn't literal, how many generation of people is that, whom were deceived by god's inspired word in the bible?
God, the great deceiver, or is that Satan's title? Hmmmm are we sure the bible is god's inspired word and not Satan's? How can we know for sure?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 18, 2012, 09:55:44 PM
Again...if he is God and therefore Creator of the cosmos, then there is right and wrong that is dictated by Him.
If right and wrong is dictated by god, then why do his followers interpret away things that he clearly has stated is wrong?
Those that disobey the Sabbath, the bible tells us that god thinks they should be put to death.
Non virgin women whom marry, "put to death" the god says.
And yet, Christians read this and then decide, Hmmm, a perfect and loving god can't possibly mean what he says here. Maybe death means something else, surely it must. May he means that we are allowed to work on the sabbath, maybe he means that non virgin women are allowed to get married. Yes, that's what he meant. Praise the lord and his infinite wisdom!
As I understand it, the early church accepted that Genesis was allegorical. The liitearlist perspective seems to be a later development. The incompatible theologies in the new testament and its ignominouus history of reverse engineering, redaction, mistranscription, censorship and selective editing in my view provide the grounds for a far more destructive critique of Christian doctrine.
Quote from: Gawen on May 19, 2012, 03:44:10 PM
QuoteBBut first and foremost is that if God is the Creator, then what right do you (or me) have to dictate how the Creator deals with that which He created?
1) IF there was a creator
2) IF your God is the Creator
3) IF that creator deals with its creations
a) A believer has no right to dictate to his/her creator any more than a marionette has the right to dictate to its creator. If one believes in the Biblical God, then one must know there is no free will (only the illusion of free will), not unlike a marionette. There is enough Biblical support to know that nothing comes or happens except by the Biblical God. "In the beginning, there was the Word..." for example. Even the Jesus character was predestined to live and die in the story, all towards God's great plan...which no believer has the right to question...or even knows.
So one has the God of the Hebrew Bible, the Usurper Saul/Paul and the late, extremely questionable writings of the Gospels all packed into an ambiguously, confusingly and contradictorily written tome full of superstition and selected by those who had the power, wanted power, had an axe to grind and then made Holy upon pain of death or excommunication. THIS is what believers put their faith into.
So badly written by men with this God guiding their pen is this tome. Believers have no choice but to pick and choose. Never mind the lasting forever covenants of this God with His chosen people. Never mind Jesus was the MAN and what he tells you to do to achieve salvation. Never mind what the misogynist, introverted, and quite likely psycho Paul would have you do. Never mind that one cherry picks. Just remember that it's all predestined, right or wrong in the fact that no believer knows this god's plan and how he/she fits within it. All for the glory in Him and the promise that you won't be spending an eternity of torture away from His Most High Benevolence.
How truly sad it all is...
It is Christianity which posits the notion of free will. In fact free will is a logical impossibility and to believe in it is as much an act of faith as theism.
Quote from: En_Route on May 20, 2012, 10:34:23 AM
It is Christianity which posits the notion of free will. In fact free will is a logical impossibility and to believe in it is as much an act of faith as theism.
Yes, we think we are in control, we think we can drive the direction of our thoughts and our actions, but really all movements, chemical reactions, electrical impulses, heat exchanges etc, they are all driven by the unchangeable forces of physical existence (gravity, electromagnetic, nuclear) maybe some others we haven't discovered yet. But with all known physical states and forces then your thoughts and actions are predictable. Except for the uncertainty principle, probability of atomic decay, quantum fluctuations and others we haven't discovered yet, but there certainly is no non physical "magical/supernatural" element to your decision making process. Well not one that we can ever test for and hence know.
Free will - Pfffftt.
Quote from: Stevil on May 19, 2012, 09:08:15 PM
Yet another story (Genesis as well) that people believed was literal, up until the point that science proved it was impossible, then all of a sudden it becomes figurative or something that requires much interpretation.
So for over 1,000 years people had no way of knowing that it wasn't literal, how many generation of people is that, whom were deceived by god's inspired word in the bible?
God, the great deceiver, or is that Satan's title? Hmmmm are we sure the bible is god's inspired word and not Satan's? How can we know for sure?
Missing the forest for the trees. Inspired word of God...it still accomplishes that God is Creator. Whether creation took 7 literal days or 7 million years does not remove the point of God. The bigger picture and the point of it all is simply, "In the beginning God..." So is there "deception" in humans taking this to mean 7 literal days or 7 million years? It's a secondary (or even less) pillar of belief. Primary is that God is.
Quote from: StevilIf right and wrong is dictated by god, then why do his followers interpret away things that he clearly has stated is wrong?
Those that disobey the Sabbath, the bible tells us that god thinks they should be put to death.
Non virgin women whom marry, "put to death" the god says.
And yet, Christians read this and then decide, Hmmm, a perfect and loving god can't possibly mean what he says here. Maybe death means something else, surely it must. May he means that we are allowed to work on the sabbath, maybe he means that non virgin women are allowed to get married. Yes, that's what he meant. Praise the lord and his infinite wisdom!
Ultimately every person that disobeys God's commands will die. Again, if God is God, and therefore sovereign, what difference is there if the penalty is paid for immediate or later? The OT dealing with God's Law was a teaching era...as with a parent to child. The punishments were handed down immediately, whereas in the NT, we move from parent/child to parent raises child and the parent no longer hands down immediate punishment.
Again one would need to understand the Bible to more correctly interpret it as opposed to cherry-picking a sentence here and there and making false conslusions when many other aspects/situations speak to a more precise and harmonious interpretation.
The OT Law was written in stone...a metaphor for it's longevity...that being God's Law, it will be forever. But in the NT the Law is not written in stone, but in our hearts...in that it is not followed or we will die (immediate punishment) , but because we love God and in loving someone we do that which pleases our loved ones. It is not followed out of obligation, that we would gain anything from it as payment, but of our own free will...because we want to. The OT simply taught the ways of God...that to disobey God is to die. They experienced God's judgment more immediate. Us, today, we don't experience God's judgment as they did, but will face it at some point.
About the Sabbath...heh...you're speaking with an Adventist that upholds ALL the 10 as binding on a believer, not as a means to salvation, but because to love god is to follow that which defines good from bad.
There is so much theology in this that people write books on and I could not here....nor should I.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 21, 2012, 05:51:22 PM
About the Sabbath...heh...you're speaking with an Adventist that upholds ALL the 10 as binding on a believer, not as a means to salvation, but because to love god is to follow that which defines good from bad.
Oh, I didn't know that.
So an SDA would sooner not work on the sabbath than perform their role as a doctor, paramedic, fire fighter and save a life.
Quote from: Stevil on May 21, 2012, 06:26:53 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 21, 2012, 05:51:22 PM
About the Sabbath...heh...you're speaking with an Adventist that upholds ALL the 10 as binding on a believer, not as a means to salvation, but because to love god is to follow that which defines good from bad.
Oh, I didn't know that.
So an SDA would sooner not work on the sabbath than perform their role as a doctor, paramedic, fire fighter and save a life.
Lots of SDA's are doctors, paramedics, fire fighters and do save lives on the Sabbath...afterall, it is what Christ lived and it is good to do good on the Sabbath.
Here are my thoughts. This is a group of happy "atheists"! Right? The concept of a god is alien to us. So the words ascribed to Jesus are the words of a fallible human being written down and translated by fallible human beings that may or may not be useful today. We read the ideas of many thinkers from over the centuries and find many of these ideas useless today. We expect errors from our ancestors as well as from our contemporaries. Why would we expect anything more from Jesus unless we fall into the trap of granting him theistic license?
The human animal has been struggling away from authority, superstition, etc, toward scientific methods and rational thought over many centuries with very little progress. But arguing about whether the ideas of Jesus are the words of authority for today without considering any modifying historical events is not helping modern humanity. Some of the ideas proposed in the N.T. may have ethical value and not economic application for our century. They may be worth debating.
Now, I await my critics.
Quote from: chic on May 21, 2012, 06:55:38 PM
Here are my thoughts. This is a group of happy "atheists"! Right? The concept of a god is alien to us. So the words ascribed to Jesus are the words of a fallible human being written down and translated by fallible human beings that may or may not be useful today. We read the ideas of many thinkers from over the centuries and find many of these ideas useless today. We expect errors from our ancestors as well as from our contemporaries. Why would we expect anything more from Jesus unless we fall into the trap of granting him theistic license?
The human animal has been struggling away from authority, superstition, etc, toward scientific methods and rational thought over many centuries with very little progress. But arguing about whether the ideas of Jesus are the words of authority for today without considering any modifying historical events is not helping modern humanity. Some of the ideas proposed in the N.T. may have ethical value and not economic application for our century. They may be worth debating.
Now, I await my critics.
Very true, however not many (if any) make the claims Jesus did, hence why his words have survived. Because of this reason, we "should" take them as a whole and not in part as the whole speaks volumes to and of the parts.
That's all I'm asking/suggesting of those that are critical of these words.
BTW...Hi chic. Welcome to HAF. :)
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 21, 2012, 07:09:03 PM
Very true, however not many (if any) make the claims Jesus did, hence why his words have survived. Because of this reason, we "should" take them as a whole and not in part as the whole speaks volumes to and of the parts.
That's all I'm asking/suggesting of those that are critical of these words.
BTW...Hi chic. Welcome to HAF. :)
Thanks for responding. Are you saying that Jesus' claim of some relationship to say the O.T. god should be given credibility to enhance his human instruction and teaching?
Quote from: chic on May 21, 2012, 07:20:24 PM
Thanks for responding. Are you saying that Jesus' claim of some relationship to say the O.T. god should be given credibility to enhance his human instruction and teaching?
No. It's clear that most of HAF (atheists) doesn't give these credibility. What I'm saying is that we should interpret this instruction/teachings in light of the whole and not as stand-alone. When there seems to be contradictions in that the OT God drops the gavel right away (flood, first-born, plagues, Sodom and Gomorrah) and the NT God doesn't drop the gavel at all (cast the first stone, grace, mercy, obey authority)...we miss that the gavel drops either immediately or at some future point. The point being God drops the gavel. Judgment is made. Whether it is now or later is not the point. If the adulterous person dies now or later, the point is "adultery" (insert anything against the Law as the Law points to sin) is wrong and will be judged by God.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 21, 2012, 07:40:19 PM
Quote from: chic on May 21, 2012, 07:20:24 PM
Thanks for responding. Are you saying that Jesus' claim of some relationship to say the O.T. god should be given credibility to enhance his human instruction and teaching?
No. It's clear that most of HAF (atheists) doesn't give these credibility. What I'm saying is that we should interpret this instruction/teachings in light of the whole and not as stand-alone. When there seems to be contradictions in that the OT God drops the gavel right away (flood, first-born, plagues, Sodom and Gomorrah) and the NT God doesn't drop the gavel at all (cast the first stone, grace, mercy, obey authority)...we miss that the gavel drops either immediately or at some future point. The point being God drops the gavel. Judgment is made. Whether it is now or later is not the point. If the adulterous person dies now or later, the point is "adultery" (insert anything against the Law as the Law points to sin) is wrong and will be judged by God.
OK. You are saying the O.T. commandments apply but the difference is in God's response. O.T. God kills the sinner now [gavel drops] OK, But then does the N.T. God wait or never punish? There is some confusion over your words "NT God doesn't drop the gavel at all" and "the gavel drops either immediately or at some future point." Are you saying the NT God does or does not "judge' us to our detriment?
Quote from: chic on May 21, 2012, 07:54:37 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 21, 2012, 07:40:19 PM
Quote from: chic on May 21, 2012, 07:20:24 PM
Thanks for responding. Are you saying that Jesus' claim of some relationship to say the O.T. god should be given credibility to enhance his human instruction and teaching?
No. It's clear that most of HAF (atheists) doesn't give these credibility. What I'm saying is that we should interpret this instruction/teachings in light of the whole and not as stand-alone. When there seems to be contradictions in that the OT God drops the gavel right away (flood, first-born, plagues, Sodom and Gomorrah) and the NT God doesn't drop the gavel at all (cast the first stone, grace, mercy, obey authority)...we miss that the gavel drops either immediately or at some future point. The point being God drops the gavel. Judgment is made. Whether it is now or later is not the point. If the adulterous person dies now or later, the point is "adultery" (insert anything against the Law as the Law points to sin) is wrong and will be judged by God.
OK. You are saying the O.T. commandments apply but the difference is in God's response. O.T. God kills the sinner now [gavel drops] OK, But then does the N.T. God wait or never punish?
Punishment becomes like that in an adult today that goes against their parental teaching. Say a child is punished for smoking...as I was as a child. The punishment is a spanking (I grew up with spanking as the norm) or restrictions of some kind...or both. Now as an adult, what can my parent do to me now that I know what their wish/teaching is, but I do otherwise? Nothing. So the punishment is either the consequences of that act or none at all IN THIS LIFE. However there is a consequence for going against that which sustains life. It is death. But the ultimate death (in which life cannot be restored) is reserved to the end when the gift of life is given out to those that held faith.
Quote from: chicThere is some confusion over your words "NT God doesn't drop the gavel at all" and "the gavel drops either immediately or at some future point." Are you saying the NT God does or does not "judge' us to our detriment?
I said does not drop the gavel, but in the context that we do not see it from our perspective as we simply live and die naturally. Everyone lives and everyone dies at some point. THIS death is not a punishment per se, but the second death...that which is brought upon the nonbeliever as a result of disbelief or rejection is the punishment. Judgment day comes. Whether it is "today" or even after our natural death, it will come...in context of the Bible of course and belief therein.
Quote from: chic on May 21, 2012, 06:55:38 PM
Here are my thoughts. This is a group of happy "atheists"! Right? The concept of a god is alien to us. So the words ascribed to Jesus are the words of a fallible human being written down and translated by fallible human beings that may or may not be useful today. We read the ideas of many thinkers from over the centuries and find many of these ideas useless today. We expect errors from our ancestors as well as from our contemporaries. Why would we expect anything more from Jesus unless we fall into the trap of granting him theistic license?
The human animal has been struggling away from authority, superstition, etc, toward scientific methods and rational thought over many centuries with very little progress. But arguing about whether the ideas of Jesus are the words of authority for today without considering any modifying historical events is not helping modern humanity. Some of the ideas proposed in the N.T. may have ethical value and not economic application for our century. They may be worth debating.
Now, I await my critics.
I agree that ethical ideas whatever the nature of their origin and the course of their subsequent evolution may merit consideration. It is however not feasible to view Christianity as a homogeneous body of belief; it encompasses many variants some of which, to my mind anyway, are rather more appealing than others. We cannot be completely sure that anyone called Jesus actually existed though it seems almost certain he did. The New Testament itself presents many faces of Jesus depending on the theological bent of the writers whose works were ultimately selected for inclusion. The Jesus that is portrayed in the NT is a composite, contradictory ahistoric figure and we cannot extract from it any coherent, consistent account of what he actually stood for.These kind of bible-knocking arguments are useful in rebutting those who lay claims for its authority and authenticity as the word of God. However, again, I agree in terms of assessing the worth and/or truth of any particular subset of Christian beliefs this kind of textual analysis is pointless.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 21, 2012, 06:35:17 PM
Lots of SDA's are doctors, paramedics, fire fighters and do save lives on the Sabbath...afterall, it is what Christ lived and it is good to do good on the Sabbath.
So more exceptions, when the bible didn't speak of exceptions.
A doctor is allowed to work on the sabbath.
I guess it is good for humanity that Christian's inject logic and common sense into that which reads non nonsensical.
For me, I just simply have to reject the bible and its claims.
As an outsider I don't start with accepting the assertions.
Thus I cannot interpret, twist the words to some how become consistent with the assertions.
How can a non believer possibly believe based on reading the only revealed word of the Christian god, the bible?
Quote from: Stevil on May 21, 2012, 10:33:33 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 21, 2012, 06:35:17 PM
Lots of SDA's are doctors, paramedics, fire fighters and do save lives on the Sabbath...afterall, it is what Christ lived and it is good to do good on the Sabbath.
So more exceptions, when the bible didn't speak of exceptions.
A doctor is allowed to work on the sabbath.
I guess it is good for humanity that Christian's inject logic and common sense into that which reads non nonsensical.
For me, I just simply have to reject the bible and its claims.
As an outsider I don't start with accepting the assertions.
Thus I cannot interpret, twist the words to some how become consistent with the assertions.
Not an exception. It's clearly laid out in the Bible, but since you haven't read it apparently, you wouldn't have seen it. Helping others is a good work.
Let's put it this way: For me to go out on the Sabbath and do yardwork on my own yard is a sin. My weekly work will be done or left at a point that it need not be done on the Sabbath. If I notice a neighbor needs help with THEIR yardwork, for example, it is good work and therefore it is good to do good on the Sabbath. And that day should be reserved for fellowship with him. It's not only church, but many other ways. Church is just the most common "worship" of God. Helping others is work, but a good work.
It all makes perfect sense and is quite logical. It's just not logical when one cherry-picks the arguments.
Quote from: StevilHow can a non believer possibly believe based on reading the only revealed word of the Christian god, the bible?
Only by setting out to understand the whole of it and not simply draw conslusions based on one sentence. But this would take more than cursory reading.
Quote from: StevilHow can a non believer possibly believe based on reading the only [alleged] revealed word of the Christian god, the bible?
The same way believers do. They have no choice otherwise.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 21, 2012, 11:04:32 PM
Not an exception. It's clearly laid out in the Bible, but since you haven't read it apparently, you wouldn't have seen it. Helping others is a good work.
It is not clear.
If I were writing a document and stated 10 musts but those musts came with caveats I would need to highlight in the musts that conditions or exceptions apply.
I would then need to clearly state what those were.
When you beloved child rapist protagonist Moses came down with the 10 commandments,
where were the exceptions? The bible wasn't even written at that stage.
When the bible talks of this story, it doesn't highlight that conditions apply.
Your interpreted conditions are hidden amongst other anecdotal stories within the book.
This book would not hold water in a court, it is so vague, so ridiculous.
Quote from: Stevil on May 22, 2012, 02:44:56 AM
When the bible talks of this story, it doesn't highlight that conditions apply.
Your interpreted conditions are hidden amongst other anecdotal stories within the book.
I'm finding a lot of the same thing in
The Reason for God by Timothy Keller -- it's a minefield of inconsistencies, assumptions, and commentary treated as gospel. At one point he gave me a Budhorse moment ("wait, what?") when he referred to a popular atheist's arguements as circular, and I had been thinking a few seconds before that Keller was the king of circular arguements. Maybe it's a Xtian thing.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on May 22, 2012, 03:37:24 AM
Quote from: Stevil on May 22, 2012, 02:44:56 AM
When the bible talks of this story, it doesn't highlight that conditions apply.
Your interpreted conditions are hidden amongst other anecdotal stories within the book.
I'm finding a lot of the same thing in The Reason for God by Timothy Keller -- it's a minefield of inconsistencies, assumptions, and commentary treated as gospel. At one point he gave me a Budhorse moment ("wait, what?") when he referred to a popular atheist's arguements as circular, and I had been thinking a few seconds before that Ferris was the king of circular arguements. Maybe it's a Xtian thing.
That sounds so puzzling.
What is Reason for god about?
Quote from: Stevil on May 22, 2012, 02:44:56 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 21, 2012, 11:04:32 PM
Not an exception. It's clearly laid out in the Bible, but since you haven't read it apparently, you wouldn't have seen it. Helping others is a good work.
It is not clear.
If I were writing a document and stated 10 musts but those musts came with caveats I would need to highlight in the musts that conditions or exceptions apply.
I would then need to clearly state what those were.
When you beloved child rapist protagonist Moses came down with the 10 commandments,
where were the exceptions? The bible wasn't even written at that stage.
When the bible talks of this story, it doesn't highlight that conditions apply.
Your interpreted conditions are hidden amongst other anecdotal stories within the book.
This book would not hold water in a court, it is so vague, so ridiculous.
Can't help but giggle.
Obviously there wasn't as many exceptions in the OT times...hence the gavel drop more often than not. It was the time of teaching...much like spankings, time-outs, and restrictions during the early years of children. When they become adults, they no longer get punished by the parents when they do something wrong...
So when the NT came or rather the teachings of Jesus, in simple words, what once were "children" and treated as such, became adults and told now they were to follow the teachings not because they had to, but because they believed it...as it really had been from the beginning. But since you don't know anything other than the things YOU find wrong, you missed that part.
It's just a bit humorous to me that you, Stevil, seem so angry for something that is a fairytale. All I'm attempting to get you/whomever is wondering, to do is to look at it as a whole since we have the WHOLE to judge it by.
It's funny you think the book wouldn't hold water in court. The whole "plan" of saving that which is lost is based wholely on Justice. The reason the fairytale Christ came and died is because it is the only way legally, according to his own law which this fairytale God submits to, can save that which he apparently loves...and he can only save those that love him in return...or as a class action lawsuit would work, those that take part in the class action law suit.
What makes me giggle, AD, is the use of god and justice in the same sentence. That actually makes sense to you. The worship me or die attitude. As i seem to recall, many dictators have the same attitude.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 22, 2012, 09:06:39 PM
What makes me giggle, AD, is the use of god and justice in the same sentence. That actually makes sense to you. The worship me or die attitude. As i seem to recall, many dictators have the same attitude.
You're not dead, are you?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 05:19:27 PM
Can't help but giggle.
This reminds me, I saw a horror movie once where a little girl giggled every time people died.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 05:19:27 PM
Obviously there wasn't as many exceptions in the OT times...hence the gavel drop more often than not. It was the time of teaching...much like spankings, time-outs, and restrictions during the early years of children. When they become adults, they no longer get punished by the parents when they do something wrong...
Only, there is a big difference between time-out and killing the offender.
With time-out, the person is unharmed, has time to reflect and may learn, with death no lessons are learnt.
But I have to giggle at the preposterous notion that AD can't see the difference and instead chooses to interpret the killing of people in the OT by his beloved god as being by-the-by just and perfect in every way.
In business speak this is known as "polishing the turd"
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 05:19:27 PM
So when the NT came or rather the teachings of Jesus, in simple words, what once were "children" and treated as such, became adults and told now they were to follow the teachings not because they had to, but because they believed it
but the teachings were to not worry about food, water or clothing, have faith that god would take care of that as long as you prioritise on seeking the kingdom of god.
I have to giggle because the vast, vast, vast majority of Christians, including AD do not follow this advice. I am saddened to feel that those truly faithful, that do follow this advise, they die young from starvation or hypothermia due to it being non conducive to life.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 05:19:27 PM
It's just a bit humorous to me that you, Stevil, seem so angry for something that is a fairytale.
It's nice to know that you see humour in other's anger. A pleasurable moment for you no doubt.
Unfortunately, I must spoil your party here.
I have no anger towards your god or your Jesus. I don't believe they exist. The stories of the bible are silly stories, seemingly written by a teenage boy with much angst and an excitement for war and death. He must have had low self esteem and viewed women as a threat.
I am extremely confussed with regards to how anybody can read the bible and simply choose to "believe" it. It seems impossible to me to believe but I guess most people are caught when they are too young to think for themselves, their parents force it on them. So how did this cycle begin?
I presume through ignorance and through enforcement by a ruthless governing power.
I do get angry though when Christian folk use their unfounded beliefs to influence law and hence the way I must live my life. Why should I be impacted by others beliefs?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 05:19:27 PM
All I'm attempting to get you/whomever is wondering, to do is to look at it as a whole since we have the WHOLE to judge it by.
You talk of a whole but all I see are unfounded assertions and a multitude of interpretations. In my opinion there is nothing at the foundation level, nothing to base a starting point from. Christianity is just empty.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 05:19:27 PM
It's funny you think the book wouldn't hold water in court. The whole "plan" of saving that which is lost is based wholely on Justice.
I think that court is about enforcing a safe society, not so much about justice.
Justice is vengeance, justice is comic book ideology. Children's thinking.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 05:19:27 PM
The reason the fairytale Christ came and died is because it is the only way legally, according to his own law which this fairytale God submits to, can save that which he apparently loves...
If there was a dude called Jesus, then he died because he was human. We all die, there is nothing special about death. Death does not save us from life, we don't need saving. We cannot delegate accountability of our own actions onto someone else, as responsible adults we accept accountability. Christianity is fundamentally flawed, I cannot understand it, it is nonsense.
Quote from: Stevil on May 22, 2012, 10:16:12 PM
I am extremely confussed with regards to how anybody can read the bible and simply choose to "believe" it. It seems impossible to me to believe but I guess most people are caught when they are too young to think for themselves, their parents force it on them. So how did this cycle begin?
I presume through ignorance and through enforcement by a ruthless governing power.
Some people have spiritual experiences which create a new perspective for them regarding God. Then they go back and read the Bible in light of those experiences, and a new world sort of opens up. You see it as a whole and it starts to make sense. In a way, it becomes a living document that opens new doors as you explore it. It's not just the black and white letters on a page. I've read the Bible your way, and I've read it in light of my experiences, and there is a vast difference between the two.
If you read something through the lenses of personal experience and consider that something factual, how can you quality check to see that your perception is indeed accurate?
Where does reality end and fantasy begin? Where does the line go where you have to say that you can not trust yourself to analyse something objectively?
Quote from: Stevil on May 22, 2012, 10:16:12 PM
We all die, there is nothing special about death. Death does not save us from life, we don't need saving. We cannot delegate accountability of our own actions onto someone else, as responsible adults we accept accountability. Christianity is fundamentally flawed Christians are fundamentally flawed. I cannot understand Christianity, it is nonsense.
I fixed it for you. Now this and the bible are in harmony.
:)
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 09:19:40 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 22, 2012, 09:06:39 PM
What makes me giggle, AD, is the use of god and justice in the same sentence. That actually makes sense to you. The worship me or die attitude. As i seem to recall, many dictators have the same attitude.
You're not dead, are you?
Excuse
you?
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 22, 2012, 11:37:35 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 09:19:40 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 22, 2012, 09:06:39 PM
What makes me giggle, AD, is the use of god and justice in the same sentence. That actually makes sense to you. The worship me or die attitude. As i seem to recall, many dictators have the same attitude.
You're not dead, are you?
Excuse you?
You don't worship this "dictator" God and you're not dead are you?
Was it/is it offensive to ask? If so, apologies.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 11:43:48 PM
You don't worship this "dictator" God and you're not dead are you?
Which is sort of indicative of that god not really being... Real?
Quote from: Asmodean on May 22, 2012, 11:45:15 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 11:43:48 PM
You don't worship this "dictator" God and you're not dead are you?
Which is sort of indicative of that god not really being... Real?
...or that if he is, is no "dictator".
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 11:50:24 PM
...or that if he is, is no "dictator".
...Which is sort of indicative of the lack of need to believe in and/or worship him to get all the goodies, no?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 22, 2012, 10:45:08 PM
Some people have spiritual experiences which create a new perspective for them regarding God. Then they go back and read the Bible in light of those experiences, and a new world sort of opens up.
So those people are saved by god's grace, but the people whom god chooses not to give compelling spiritual experiences to, they aren't saved and hence don't get resurrected in New Earth where the sun never exhausts its fuel supply.
Do you find this logical and compelling and worth believing in?
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 11:43:48 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 22, 2012, 11:37:35 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 09:19:40 PM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 22, 2012, 09:06:39 PM
What makes me giggle, AD, is the use of god and justice in the same sentence. That actually makes sense to you. The worship me or die attitude. As i seem to recall, many dictators have the same attitude.
You're not dead, are you?
Excuse you?
You don't worship this "dictator" God and you're not dead are you?
Was it/is it offensive to ask? If so, apologies.
(( i was just confused by the statement.))
I cant worship something that doesnt exist..
Quote from: Asmodean on May 22, 2012, 10:49:30 PM
If you read something through the lenses of personal experience and consider that something factual, how can you quality check to see that your perception is indeed accurate?
Where does reality end and fantasy begin? Where does the line go where you have to say that you can not trust yourself to analyse something objectively?
I think that's were faith comes in.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 22, 2012, 11:58:13 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 11:50:24 PM
...or that if he is, is no "dictator".
...Which is sort of indicative of the lack of need to believe in and/or worship him to get all the goodies, no?
...which equates justice and dictatorship.
Quote from: Stevil on May 23, 2012, 12:19:10 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 22, 2012, 10:45:08 PM
Some people have spiritual experiences which create a new perspective for them regarding God. Then they go back and read the Bible in light of those experiences, and a new world sort of opens up.
So those people are saved by god's grace, but the people whom god chooses not to give compelling spiritual experiences to, they aren't saved and hence don't get resurrected in New Earth where the sun never exhausts its fuel supply.
Do you find this logical and compelling and worth believing in?
It's the sort of love that lets each individual choose to believe or not believe according to their own conscience...not unlike how it seems you've chosen according to your conscience. God only moves on those that move towards him. Would you rather he force himself on you? It seems clear that knowing "all about this god" through his word (bible) and what he offers everyone, you actively choose against...but you sound angry that he's not "chosen" you when in fact it's the exact opposite in that you've not chosen him.
It's simple logic. If God created life, then to choose against this God is to choose death. Nothing "unfair" about that at all
If God created the cosmos, then it's not such a stretch to think our sun's fuel supply will never be exhausted...if the sun remains "our sun" at all.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 22, 2012, 10:49:30 PM
If you read something through the lenses of personal experience and consider that something factual, how can you quality check to see that your perception is indeed accurate?
Where does reality end and fantasy begin? Where does the line go where you have to say that you can not trust yourself to analyse something objectively?
We do this all the time. You pass someone on the street who looks a little odd. Maybe you do a double take to make sure you saw what you think you saw. Still looks weird. You shrug your shoulders and go on. You've just had a personal experience. You didn't stop the person and conduct any kind of scientific analysis on them. You trusted your experience - I saw a weird looking person today - now you believe that there are people who look like that, even if you can't go back, find that person again, and prove it to anyone else.
Same with experiences of the spiritual nature. You have them, and they can't be repeated to analyze them. So you take them into your reservoir of life events and they begin to form you and your view of the world. They can't be tested scientifically, so they can never qualify as knowledge, per se. But they can open you up to the possibility of something beyond the realm of scientific observation. Depending upon the nature and intensity of the experience, they can create some degree of confidence in you that something "out there" does exist. That could be referred to as "faith."
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 23, 2012, 04:06:15 PM
Quote from: Stevil on May 23, 2012, 12:19:10 AM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 22, 2012, 10:45:08 PM
Some people have spiritual experiences which create a new perspective for them regarding God. Then they go back and read the Bible in light of those experiences, and a new world sort of opens up.
So those people are saved by god's grace, but the people whom god chooses not to give compelling spiritual experiences to, they aren't saved and hence don't get resurrected in New Earth where the sun never exhausts its fuel supply.
Do you find this logical and compelling and worth believing in?
It's the sort of love that lets each individual choose to believe or not believe according to their own conscience...not unlike how it seems you've chosen according to your conscience. God only moves on those that move towards him. Would you rather he force himself on you? It seems clear that knowing "all about this god" through his word (bible) and what he offers everyone, you actively choose against...but you sound angry that he's not "chosen" you when in fact it's the exact opposite in that you've not chosen him.
It's simple logic. If God created life, then to choose against this God is to choose death. Nothing "unfair" about that at all
If God created the cosmos, then it's not such a stretch to think our sun's fuel supply will never be exhausted...if the sun remains "our sun" at all.
Simple logic, according to you.
I could use the same argument using Ra, the bird gid of the Sun. :\
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 23, 2012, 03:58:34 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on May 22, 2012, 11:58:13 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 22, 2012, 11:50:24 PM
...or that if he is, is no "dictator".
...Which is sort of indicative of the lack of need to believe in and/or worship him to get all the goodies, no?
...which equates justice and dictatorship.
...Unless of course you are saying that justice is not about personal preference.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 23, 2012, 05:09:21 PM
Simple logic, according to you.
I could use the same argument using Ra, the bird gid of the Sun. :\
You could. However neither of these make the same claim.
Meant bird god up there ^
Your beliefs are personal. It doesnt make them a fact.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 23, 2012, 06:24:03 PM
Meant bird god up there ^
Your beliefs are personal. It doesnt make them a fact.
I believe you're making a point well established already. Both sides agree. The believer cannot prove God.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 23, 2012, 05:09:21 PM
Simple logic, according to you.
I could use the same argument using Ra, the bird gid of the Sun. :\
You could, if you had had any personal experience with Ra that you considered genuine. Have you?
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 23, 2012, 07:53:55 PM
You could, if you had had any personal experience with Ra that you considered genuine. Have you?
Could you though? Oh, sure, you could do a "My best guess is..." argument, or any other purely speculative variety, but with no way of verifying the accuracy of your own interpretation of your experience, how is such an argument to hold water with any one else?
Quote from: Asmodean on May 23, 2012, 08:47:56 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 23, 2012, 07:53:55 PM
You could, if you had had any personal experience with Ra that you considered genuine. Have you?
Could you though? Oh, sure, you could do a "My best guess is..." argument, or any other purely speculative variety, but with no way of verifying the accuracy of your own interpretation of your experience, how is such an argument to hold water with any one else?
I think HAF is full of people expressing personal experiences with no way of verifying the accuracy and yet most of the members are quick to offer advice/opinions/condolences/encouragement...and rightly so.
A different issue.
For example, I do not inflict the consequences of having a different experience than my own on others. However, it is a common trait among many theists to apply their own personal god to me, you and the guy next door. If I do consider my experience to be larger than self and present it as such, I have to present a means to verify that what I say is not just a pile of bullshit.
As long as personal remains personal though, there is no problem.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 23, 2012, 09:04:20 PM
A different issue.
For example, I do not inflict the consequences of having a different experiene than my own on others. However, it is a common trait among many theists to apply their own personal god to me, you and the guy next door. If I do, I have to present a means to verify that what I say is not just a pile of bullshit.
As long as personal remains personal and is presented as such, there is no problem.
Really. How are the "consequences" inflicted on you? I can understand a person not liking the beliefs of another person, but to feel like the consequences are being inflicted on you...I don't understand. It seems you may put too much weight on those you deem delusional...?
Quote from: Asmodean on May 23, 2012, 08:47:56 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 23, 2012, 07:53:55 PM
You could, if you had had any personal experience with Ra that you considered genuine. Have you?
Could you though? Oh, sure, you could do a "My best guess is..." argument, or any other purely speculative variety, but with no way of verifying the accuracy of your own interpretation of your experience, how is such an argument to hold water with any one else?
The only issue is if it is convincing to you. If the experience, upon considering it, convinces you that it was legitimate, then you can move forward on that assumption. It may not convince anyone else, but if it convinces you, then you have your own working hypothesis, and you can test it for yourself in daily life - does it give you peace, does it get you through a crisis, does it resolve existential angst, etc.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 23, 2012, 09:08:39 PM
does it give you peace, does it get you through a crisis, does it resolve existential angst, etc.
...Neither of which speak to the accuracy of your interpretation of it. I'd rather be an angst-ridden train wreck than live my life based on weak suppositions.
QuoteReally. How are the "consequences" inflicted on you? I can understand a person not liking the beliefs of another person, but to feel like the consequences are being inflicted on you...I don't understand. It seems you may put too much weight on those you deem delusional...?
When you* (*impersonal throughout) say your god loves
me and wants me to live forever in his kingdom and will frown upon my misdeeds, you inflict your god on me. When you go to a house of worship in the morning and they start ringing their bells, yelling through loudspeakers and the like, your personal shit disturbs my peace and quiet.
It is totally up to you to believe whatever you please, regardless of its accuracy, morality or standard of proof, but I'd rather you not ignore any of those if your belief reaches outside your own mind.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 23, 2012, 09:18:29 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 23, 2012, 09:08:39 PM
does it give you peace, does it get you through a crisis, does it resolve existential angst, etc.
...Neither of which speak to the accuracy of your interpretation of it. I'd rather be an angst-ridden train wreck than live my life based on weak suppositions.
QuoteReally. How are the "consequences" inflicted on you? I can understand a person not liking the beliefs of another person, but to feel like the consequences are being inflicted on you...I don't understand. It seems you may put too much weight on those you deem delusional...?
When you* (*impersonal throughout) say your god loves me and wants me to live forever in his kingdom and will frown upon my misdeeds, you inflict your god on me. When you go to a house of worship in the morning and they start ringing their bells, yelling through loudspeakers and the like, your personal shit disturbs my peace and quiet.
It is totally up to you to believe whatever you please, regardless of its accuracy, morality or standard of proof, but I'd rather you not ignore any of those if your belief reaches outside your own mind.
If you do not believe, then how is it inflicted upon you? Bells, loudspeakers? If you live too close to a church that rings their bells on their worship morning...move. Each is within their right to do so otherwise there would be a law against moving and/or ringing bells.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 23, 2012, 09:18:29 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 23, 2012, 09:08:39 PM
does it give you peace, does it get you through a crisis, does it resolve existential angst, etc.
...Neither of which speak to the accuracy of your interpretation of it. I'd rather be an angst-ridden train wreck than live my life based on weak suppositions.
QuoteReally. How are the "consequences" inflicted on you? I can understand a person not liking the beliefs of another person, but to feel like the consequences are being inflicted on you...I don't understand. It seems you may put too much weight on those you deem delusional...?
When you* (*impersonal throughout) say your god loves me and wants me to live forever in his kingdom and will frown upon my misdeeds, you inflict your god on me. When you go to a house of worship in the morning and they start ringing their bells, yelling through loudspeakers and the like, your personal shit disturbs my peace and quiet.
It is totally up to you to believe whatever you please, regardless of its accuracy, morality or standard of proof, but I'd rather you not ignore any of those if your belief reaches outside your own mind.
Oh boy , i live across the street from a church, so the bells/preaching through loud speakers-- i have experienced personally.
AD, are you being sarcastic? Personal belief affects everyone, because the problem is: .no one keeps it to themselves!
When people ask me in the park on my lunchbreak for donations to their missionary trip to thailand. It affects me. And annoys me, cuz now i know they are going to try to preach their god dellusion to thailand natives.
Laws in the U. S are made under rhe personal god belief that homosexuals are "not natural" and dont deserve basic human rights, cuz jeebus says so.
So, hmm.. Is Asmo or me affected? I'd say yes.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 23, 2012, 09:27:35 PM
If you do not believe, then how is it inflicted upon you?
Me personally? Let me see... People at my door trying to sell me some god before daylight, an occasional lunatic on the street that stops me not to ask for something good and valid like directions or a cigarette... Or even a tenner, for that matter, but whether or not I have "found jesus", the word "Christian" appearing in my constitution, symbolic as it is since recent changes, people wanting me dead, burned in hell or otherwise inconvenienced for not sharing in their delusions, losing a friend to his own god and another to his parents considering me bad influence for lacking one... It's a long list.
So that is how other people's gods affect me. And you know what, if they could provide any form of good, rational and verifiable reason for it being so, I would live with it and shut up. As long as it's about "Ah, but I have this feeling and I know I'm right deep inside my soul and I have a soul by the way and so do you and therefor you have to put up with my shit without any real chance of opting out" though, I object to the practices that take gods out of people's minds and shove them down other people's throats.
QuoteBells, loudspeakers? If you live too close to a church that rings their bells on their worship morning...move. Each is within their right to do so otherwise there would be a law against moving and/or ringing bells.
There is a law against bells above a certain decibel count. That said, why should I be the one to move? I do not pollute mailboxes with leaflets (poor rainforest...) and my neighbourhood with noise, not more than my neighbours - less than most in fact, less than those with kids and/or dogs and/or motorcycles, at least. Let the damned church move some ten kilometers from civilization. Let them ring their damned bells and yell prayers to their damned Allah there.
I know what its like to lose a friend to religion....
My jr. h.s friend since i was 15. We dont see eechother at all . His mom goes to church 5 days a week and he believes my "choice in lifestyle" is sinful. I had to walk away from that negativity.
Sorry to hear that, Asmo.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 23, 2012, 09:30:19 PM
Oh boy , i live across the street from a church, so the bells/preaching through loud speakers-- i have experienced personally.
Loudspeakers...really? I have never heard any church going around doing the loudspeaker thing. But it's your experience, so I'll assume you're not making it up.
Quote from: SweetdeathAD, are you being sarcastic? Personal belief affects everyone, because the problem is: .no one keeps it to themselves!
When people ask me in the park on my lunchbreak for donations to their missionary trip to thailand. It affects me. And annoys me, cuz now i know they are going to try to preach their god dellusion to thailand natives.
Ok...you're affected by people coming up to you at the park. "No, thank you." is annoying/affecting you to the point of hate? What effect does someone preaching a few thousand miles from you have on you? Is it not their right to do that which is lawful? Or should there be a law against it?
Quote from: SweetdeathLaws in the U. S are made under rhe personal god belief that homosexuals are "not natural" and dont deserve basic human rights, cuz jeebus says so.
Jeebus never said anything about making civil law against homosexuals. ( In context of a theocracy, is different. ) There should be separation between Church and State...and even the bible is clear on this. The problem is that "we" don't see that Jeebus came to get rid of the man-made rules man made thinking he could "help the cause" by doing so. While there is mention of what one should or shouldn't do, there is nothing in God's Law (read: 10 Commandments) that says anything against homosexuals. Jeebus makes it clear that these are THE most important. Any other "rules" are secondary and should not be instituted on the world, but should be held as personal. ( as well as the 10 should be on the heart, not in civil law books. )
Of course this knowledge comes from actual reading an not simply skimming the texts.
Quote from: SweetdeathSo, hmm.. Is Asmo or me affected? I'd say yes.
Sticks and stones...One can only be affected by that which he/she allows affect them.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 23, 2012, 09:53:10 PM
Sticks and stones...One can only be affected by that which he/she allows affect them.
Yes, if someone shoots you and you refuse to let it affet you, them bullets WILL bounce... ::)
Quote from: Asmodean on May 23, 2012, 09:44:12 PM
Me personally? Let me see... People at my door trying to sell me some god before daylight, an occasional lunatic on the street that stops me not to ask for something good and valid like directions or a cigarette... Or even a tenner, for that matter, but whether or not I have "found jesus", the word "Christian" appearing in my constitution, symbolic as it is since recent changes, people wanting me dead, burned in hell or otherwise inconvenienced for not sharing in their delusions, losing a friend to his own god and another to his parents considering me bad influence for lacking one... It's a long list.
How about a $1.00 sign on your door that reads, "No Solicitors".
If you're ok with someone stopping you on the street for a "tenner" that you might or might not have, the same time is "wasted"...
Christian appears in your constitution? Move from the country. It was there before you were.
People want you dead? Live and thumb your nose at them. ( again...it seems giving the delusional too much credit. )
Losing a friend...very sad and sorry to hear that. To me, they weren't really your friend.
Quote from: AsmodeanSo that is how other people's gods affect me. And you know what, if they could provide any form of good, rational and verifiable reason for it being so, I would live with it and shut up. As long as it's about "Ah, but I have this feeling and I know I'm right deep inside my soul and I have a soul by the way and so do you and therefor you have to put up with my shit without any real chance of opting out" though, I object to the practices that take gods out of people's minds and shove them down other people's throats.
I still fail to see how it's being shoved down your throat.
Quote from: AsmodeanThere is a law against bells above a certain decibel count. That said, why should I be the one to move? I do not pollute mailboxes with leaflets (poor rainforest...) and my neighbourhood with noise, not more than my neighbours - less than most in fact, less than those with kids and/or dogs and/or motorcycles, at least. Let the damned church move some ten kilometers from civilization.
If they're operating the bells outside the law, make a formal complaint. Why should you move? Because it's driving you crazy apparently. Isn't this the logical thing to do?
You can go to your post office and stop the junk mail.
You know...it is my experience that people create towns around churches. What was there first...you or the church? Is it easier for you to move or the church to move? If the church moves, how many people does that affect? If you move, ho many does that affect?
Quote from: AsmodeanLet them ring their damned bells and yell prayers to their damned Allah there.
Part or a small part of the U.S.'s existence is this very reason.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 23, 2012, 10:00:39 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 23, 2012, 09:53:10 PM
Sticks and stones...One can only be affected by that which he/she allows affect them.
Yes, if someone shoots you and you refuse to let it affet you, them bullets WILL bounce... ::)
Now your claim is that Christians are shooting you?
Quote from: Asmodean on May 23, 2012, 09:18:29 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 23, 2012, 09:08:39 PM
does it give you peace, does it get you through a crisis, does it resolve existential angst, etc.
...Neither of which speak to the accuracy of your interpretation of it. I'd rather be an angst-ridden train wreck than live my life based on weak suppositions.
But they are not weak to me. I'm continually refining my interpretation and getting rid of things that don't work or that are proven wrong. What's left after 59 years is a fairly simple core faith. Doesn't really have to work for anyone except me, and I figure I have as good a chance of being right as anyone else.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 23, 2012, 10:09:44 PM
How about a $1.00 sign on your door that reads, "No Solicitors".
Mine cost me nearly ten bucks, for all the good it does.
QuoteIf you're ok with someone stopping you on the street for a "tenner" that you might or might not have, the same time is "wasted"...
Yes, the same time is wasted, only it's not nearly as irritating when people come to you and honestly ask for something for personal benefit. People who want to sell me a faith, however, are annoying.
QuoteChristian appears in your constitution? Move from the country. It was there before you were.
OR I can continue being politically active and working towards removing the damned word completely. We have taken the first step. The rest shouldn't be as difficult on account of it being mostly formalities.
QuotePeople want you dead? Live and thumb your nose at them. ( again...it seems giving the delusional too much credit. )
You have no way of measuring the amount of credit I give the delusional, so all you can establish is that some credit is given. It's much less than what a drunk operating a motorized vehicle gets, but it's there.
QuoteLosing a friend...very sad and sorry to hear that. To me, they weren't really your friend.
To me, they were. I am not one to have many friends, and so I appreciate those I do have. Nor do I throw the word "friend" around lightly, so yes, my ended friendships are indeed a sad thing.
Quote from: AsmodeanSo that is how other people's gods affect me. And you know what, if they could provide any form of good, rational and verifiable reason for it being so, I would live with it and shut up. As long as it's about "Ah, but I have this feeling and I know I'm right deep inside my soul and I have a soul by the way and so do you and therefor you have to put up with my shit without any real chance of opting out" though, I object to the practices that take gods out of people's minds and shove them down other people's throats.
If you* (*still impersonal throughout) come and start telling me what some third party wants me to do, you are shoving that third party's needs and wants - or worse, your own - down my throat. If that third party can not be contacted directly so that their needs and wants can be verified and possible conditions for me providing them set, and unless bound by the society's law to accept those needs and wants and do my best to tend to them, why should I even be asked to tolerate listening to suh an arrangement?
QuoteIf they're operating the bells outside the law, make a formal complaint. Why should you move? Because it's driving you crazy apparently. Isn't this the logical thing to do?
No, they keep it within limits. It's still annoying though.
The logical thing as I see it is lobbying for prohibiting bell ringing during the same hours motorcyclists with loud bikes are prohibited from using them in urban areas.
QuoteYou can go to your post office and stop the junk mail.
Doesn't stop some ghastly green Nissan Micra from dropping the church somethingorother leaflets into every mailbox.
I have a reservation from junk mail, so every piece of mail I get is addressed to me specifically, except two varieties of local religious crap.
QuoteYou know...it is my experience that people create towns around churches. What was there first...you or the church?
The churh was here before me, but I was here before the damned bells got installed.
QuoteIs it easier for you to move or the church to move? If the church moves, how many people does that affect? If you move, ho many does that affect?
If I move, it affects me, my local inner circles and my employer. If the church moves, it affects the twenty-something people who frequent it negatively and a whole bunch of others positively, with the largest number remaining unaffected in both cases.
Quote from: Asmodean
Part or a small part of the U.S.'s existence is this very reason.
What?
Quote from: Asmodean on May 23, 2012, 10:00:39 PM
Now your claim is that Christians are shooting you?
No, I don't live in Alabama. I'm saying that being affected or not comes down to more than ignoring external factors.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on May 23, 2012, 10:27:42 PM
But they are not weak to me. I'm continually refining my interpretation and getting rid of things that don't work or that are proven wrong. What's left after 59 years is a fairly simple core faith. Doesn't really have to work for anyone except me, and I figure I have as good a chance of being right as anyone else.
And as long as you remember to hang your unverifiables on a peg by the door when you come for a visit, I have no problem with that.
Actually, it also extends to me not having a problem with you voicing an opinion regarding your own self, but if you voice an opinion that
I would be in some way better off if I shared it, then I would ask for some proper reasoning. "I feel it in my heart" is a non-argument to me - always has been.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 23, 2012, 10:30:43 PM
No, I don't live in Alabama. I'm saying that being affected or not comes down to more than ignoring external factors.
Bells in your ears = bullets in your body. Ok.
You're not "affected" by the non-religious bell or a non-religious motorcycle rider, however, a bell from a church, or a motorcycle ridden by a Christian passes by you, you're "affected".
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 23, 2012, 10:48:03 PM
You're not "affected" by the non-religious bell or a non-religious motorcycle rider,
Where did I state or imply that? Provide quotes or leave putting words in my mouth to me.
I dislike motorcyclists with poor sound dampeners driving past my windows when they are not allowed to. When they are, however, whih is much of the morning, afternoon and much of the evening, they are free to ride their bikes all they want. Bell-ringers are under no obligation not to wake me up with their bells every second sunday though, it appears, and as long as they are a religious group, as opposed to a construction company or the like, they are apparently free to do so.
QuoteBells in your ears = bullets in your body. Ok
I refer to the very first line in this reply and expect an answer.
Quote from: Asmodean on May 23, 2012, 11:26:01 PM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 23, 2012, 10:48:03 PM
You're not "affected" by the non-religious bell or a non-religious motorcycle rider,
Where did I state or imply that? Provide quotes or leave putting words in my mouth to me.
I dislike motorcyclists with poor sound dampeners driving past my windows when they are not allowed to. When they are, however, whih is much of the morning, afternoon and much of the evening, they are free to ride their bikes all they want. Bell-ringers are under no obligation not to wake me up with their bells every second sunday though, it appears, and as long as they are a religious group, as opposed to a construction company or the like, they are apparently free to do so.
QuoteBells in your ears = bullets in your body. Ok
I refer to the very first line in this reply and expect an answer.
Not trying to put words in your mouth ( sorry to have done so ) , but trying to figure out the logic of the bells "affecting" you.
I used to live 500 or so ft from an active military runway. The planes affected my sleep for a time, but after a few weeks, I didn't hear them at all during my sleep. At times NOW, I can hear the class bells of the school near my home if I listen hard enough.
Do they do class bells in the early hours of morning on weekends?
The logic I present is as follows: Your personal beliefs may lead you to actions. Those actions may affect people other than yourself (in a small or a big way - that part is largely irrelevant). If your intention is other than letting your ations affect me, like for instance a truck driver is not driving past your window to be really annoying - he has a job to do, then I don't mind in the slightest. However, if your intention is to get a message across to me (Or just make enough noise to be heard) by direct communication, that message had better hold its water or I am not interested in hearing it.
If a computer store thinks I should consider buying some stuff and send me their catalogue, with my name and address on it, then it's all good and well. I will review and see if it has any benefit for me. However, I'm not ok with some random fool approaching me with recipies for a better life without asking whether or not I even want one. To that, my response is usually a variation of "Get a life, loser!", nor am I ok with a bunch of random fools disturbing my sleep for no other reason than to be heard (Or did I miss the point of church bells and mosque loudspeakers?)
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 23, 2012, 04:06:15 PM
God only moves on those that move towards him.
Lets get this straight
In order to receive an experience, "proving" that the god exists, the following must happen:
Using AD's logic
1. The person moves towards the god
2. The god chooses (at its behest) that the person will be given a compelling experience
3. The god then delivers a compelling experience to the person.
4. The person now believes in the god
The obvious problem with this logic is premise 1.
Premise 1 cannot be the starting point. In order for a person to move towards a god the person must first believe in the god, Thus we have the full logical statement.
Stevil's Logic
1. Person must believe in the god
2. The person moves towards the god
3. The god chooses (at its behest) that the person will be given a compelling experience
4. The god then delivers a compelling experience to the person.
5. The person now believes in the god
So to arrive at 5, we must have 1. This is a circular reference.
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 23, 2012, 04:06:15 PM
Would you rather he force himself on you? It seems clear that knowing "all about this god" through his word (bible) and what he offers everyone, you actively choose against
I would rather a god not hide away, not to evaluate people based on blind faith, not to evaluate people against a lifestyle where they have no guidelines and no feedback with regards to compliance.
It would be like a government creating laws and not telling anyone about what those laws are, and worse, the government then hides away, so no one has knowledge that the government exists.
Everynow and then people simply disappear from society. No one knows where they went or why.
But the hidden government, having assessed the person transgressed the unknown law, sent its silent assassins to kill the person and to hide any evidence of the punishment, and not let anyone know why the person was punished.
What would truly be ridiculous would be for this government then to judge people based on belief. Their only crime being non belief. People that don't believe in this hidden government, they then get killed randomly, in a way that no one knows that non believers are being killed.
Christianity is such a wonderful religion don't you think?
Quote from: Stevil on May 24, 2012, 12:23:33 AM
Quote from: AnimatedDirt on May 23, 2012, 04:06:15 PM
God only moves on those that move towards him.
Lets get this straight
In order to receive an experience, "proving" that the god exists, the following must happen:
Using AD's logic
1. The person moves towards the god
2. The god chooses (at its behest) that the person will be given a compelling experience
3. The god then delivers a compelling experience to the person.
4. The person now believes in the god
The obvious problem with this logic is premise 1.
Premise 1 cannot be the starting point. In order for a person to move towards a god the person must first believe in the god, Thus we have the full logical statement.
Stevil's Logic
1. Person must believe in the god
2. The person moves towards the god
3. The god chooses (at its behest) that the person will be given a compelling experience
4. The god then delivers a compelling experience to the person.
5. The person now believes in the god
So to arrive at 5, we must have 1. This is a circular reference.
I like this explination of the insanity that is a religious belief system.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 24, 2012, 01:58:42 AM
I like this explination of the insanity that is a religious belief system.
In reality what happens is this
1. Person believes in the god
2. Person interprets an event in their life as being a religious experience.
3. Person publicly claims that event is the reason why they believe in the god.
The atheist version is thus
1. Person has events in their life
Quote from: Stevil on May 24, 2012, 11:19:58 AM
Quote from: Sweetdeath on May 24, 2012, 01:58:42 AM
I like this explination of the insanity that is a religious belief system.
In reality what happens is this
1. Person believes in the god
2. Person interprets an event in their life as being a religious experience.
3. Person publicly claims that event is the reason why they believe in the god.
The atheist version is thus
1. Person has events in their life
Yes. i love being an atheist. :)
Quote from: Stevil on May 11, 2012, 09:39:33 PM
We sometimes have Christians on this forum state that the OT was a bit crazy
But that the teaching of Jesus made up for that, with Jesus being Mr Perfect and all.
So, again finding myself alone in a hotel room, and hotel rooms invariably having Gideon's bible, I decided to read some.
I found this gem
From Matthew, this was a psycho-bable from Mr Perfect himself
"Therefore do not worry, saying, 'What shall we eat?' or 'What shall we drink?' or 'What shall we wear?' "For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things.
"But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.
So I would like to know, do Christian's starve to death? Those horrible pictures of starving kids in Africa, god is not providing, is this because they don't seek the kingdom of god?
Why am I overweight? I do not seek the kingdom of god.
Jesus also blurted out
"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you
For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.
So are these starving children not asking for food?
And what about when Jesus said
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow for tomorrow will worry about its own things, Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.
What kind of crap advise is this, are we to max out our credit cards, hire purchase and the like and just get what we want for today?
What about the squirrels that save nuts for the winter months or the birds that build nests so that they can have babies in the future?
Why do we bother educating ourselves, for the joy of knowledge on that day?
Why do we build schools, hospitals, roads, stadiums, recycle stations, if not for our futures?
Can anyone explain the "wisdom" of Jesus here?
yea exactly...i might also add:
"Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!"
Is this promise true? how many of you here have begged this "loving father" for something you really needed?
for how long can a parent see his child need something and abstain from giving it to him and still be called good and loving? The answer is usually " god knows better what is good for you...or "what you might think is good for you isn't necessarily good in god's eyes" ...but let's apply this reasoning to a human being asking his deity for:
Faith or
Forgetting someone who hurt you or
Being able go on after the death of your child
or loving your spouse or
Meeting someone who cares for you or
ridding you of bad memories/thoughts that affect you and the ones you love or
or or or or..
All these seem good to me, they involve faith, forgetfulness,going on with your life with "hope", love,caring,emotional health..
why would a loving deity, a father, the creator of this word, the love personified, why would he deprive any human being of the above and yet promise him the opposite?what is the "best" time in his loving eyes? when will he give you the "meat" you badly need? when you have no more teeth to chew it?
All this to say that sometimes, the answer to god's silence " what you are asking for is not good for you", this answer is simply absurd, from a moral and religious point of view, and yet the loving father is not there as he supposedly promised and therefore we bad human beings have much more compassion than this fake loving deity.