problem as I see it

Having grown up as, and haven dealt with a lot of fundamentalists, this is a question that now 'plagues' me.

If God is assumed to be utterly beyond human comprehension, inutterably powerful...blah blah, etc etc. How is it that ANYONE can claim to know 'his' everway to such an extent to
a. condemn others to hell
b. say they are 100% sure they are right
c. say all others are wrong

It must be that thinking thing that is such a problem, or maybe I just don't get it. But this is the way I see it: If God is all those assumed things, then certainly he has the ability to allow religions that all 'see' into the truth of God. And even if s/he made this one religion that had a line that said 'only this way is right' could it still not be completely valid to assume that God is still able, even with that statement, to make religions that are also correct.

My main question boils down to this, 'How is it that Christians can say that everyone else is going to hell and beleive it as a 100% fact when their own 'word of god' tells them its impossible to know anything completely about god.'

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This requires the same hiccups in reason that lead a person to religion in the first place. Logic means nothing to them.

God is supposed to be compassionate and yet somehow being a good person is not enough to save an atheists from hell. It is theistic logic or better yet lack thereof. They believe themselves special, able to understand more than we non-believers. They take the title of ignorance and say that makes them more reliable. How can I know anything, therefore a God exists. Just a lack of reasoning ability, that's all.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would love a response from the voice of christian reason, perhaps eki. Anyone?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Insert Title Here)

Hiccups in reason are their own. They're a human affair.

For such a reason, I must disagree with the premise expressed in the above-cited passage. I find it to be a wildly irresponsible accusation that is not supported in history.

We can, for instance, point to the overbearing logic of Catholic philosophy. Well, sure, they're Catholics with a couple of presuppositions. But, if you watch the Back to a proper discussion topic, you'll find some reflection on presuppositions and logic.

Furthermore, in that topic, we've finally been able to achieve some peaceful convention (between a couple of posters at least) regarding the fact that there do exist non-theistic religions. Karen Armstrong, as I've pointed out in that topic, reminds us that not all religions are theistic, and goes so far as to point out Humanism ("Western liberal humanism") as an example°. Dr Jeffrey Burton Russell, also considered in that topic, points to "Secular progressivism" in a harshly partisan example regarding the necessity of a goal in order to describe progress toward any goal.

There is no more a logical foundation for non-theistic "values" than there is for "theistic" values. They're human values, expressed through different mechanisms.

Is bitterness a prerequisite of the alternative to Christianity? What, then, given the conduct of Christians described by the points of fundamentalist behavior offered in the topic post, is the point of separating any of it?

However, one place where my disappointment with Teg's response is lesser is a point in which I can indirectly find some agreement. Where our topic poster has requested a voice of "Christian reason", I think the question defies a certain degree of Christian reason.

The question invites division: Christians qualifying themselves and disqualifying others, justifications, duplicity, and a number of satisfyingly fundamentalist problems. "Christian reason" almost by necessity excludes the fundamentalism described in the topic post.

Regarding those fundamentalists described in the topic post: They are essentially idiots. I can't figure out which fundamentalists are unable as opposed to those who are unwilling to think a little bit harder, or in the first place.

But look at it. Compare the fundamentalist Christians in the US to other political bodies. That's all it is: politics, pride, and sound bites. Anyone who has ever voted against a fundamentalist-sponsored ballot measure based solely on their conscience has probably already put more thought into that fundamentalist religion than the fundamentalist adherent.

I just saw the Marge vs. Itchy & Scratchy episode of The Simpsons yesterday. It pretty much serves the point. Anyone familiar with the episode can separate the two versions of logic at play: on the one side is a work of art, on the other is something which needs to cajole and insult in order to stay in business. Having won what she thought was a common-sense fight against TV violence, Marge refused to embark on a crusade against Michelangelo's David. The Helen Lovejoys of the community, who see things not in terms of others but in terms of themselves failed to make the distinction. So that we as human beings can probably agree on certain points of I&S vs. Michelangelo. The fundamentalists cannot. They see only themselves in an issue like this.

So to me it becomes essentially a question of scope of vision. People acknowledge others to various degrees. But among the vast majority of Americans, for instance, people of varying degrees of self-obsession and paranoia still manage to interact with others. And so do the extreme fundamentalist Christians. But the more value people recognize in others, the more flexible and sympathetic they will be. The Simpsons had the problem nailed. The selfishness of the fundamentalist is a different sort of selfishness from "others".

• I, for instance, find TV violence and sexuality to be tragically out of hand. There's nothing I can do about it, but if and when I write for that forum, you can bet that I'll demand higher standards for my project than they would. It's the least, most, and about the only thing I can do.

• Some, however, find TV violence and sexuality to be tragically out of hand. And there's nothing they can do about it. However, believing in a market economy, the continuing patronage of the viewers is justification for the alleged tragedy.

• Still others who find TV violence and sexuality to be tragically out of hand will undertake the ultimate demonstration: they will simply not watch television. This is the most effective, most respectful, most honorable demonstration one can make with such an issue of conscience.

• But then again, there are the fundamentalists, who believe that either everything or nothing is wrong.

• Fundamentalist marketeers--call them Capitalists if you want, but it's not the whole character--find nothing amiss about TV violence and sexuality except that the viewers are too slow. The viewers want more and more, and the producers have to put more and more in the same time. People can't perceive fast enough to get as much murder & rape in an hour as they would like on the tube. But whatever the audience chooses to watch, the Fundie-marketeers will continue to appease them. That alternatives to sex & violence are anemic despite the diversity of outlets speaks to their case. Nobody, it seems, wants to put as much effort into it, and nobody, it seems would watch even if they did. The day FOX shows a videotape of a child being raped for the Fox Family Disaster Hour (real-life TV footage, &c), the execs will point to the numbers as their justification, and the Fundie-marketeers will have one a round. This is one fundamentalism we run against in the TV wars.

• Fundamentalist Christians--and we'll go so far as to make a further distinction of world-mastery, politically-active church-cults--generally look at their own values and set them as the world. Michelangelo's David-cock is far different from Sipowicz's ass is far different from the hint of bush and bouncing areolae of PBS programming. (Seriously, one of my favorite PBS stories is flipping across Tacoma, Washington's PBS station during a pledge drive to see Victorian-era lingerie-bondage lesbianism ....) I mean, really ... is it porno or is it the human body? But even when the answer is "human body", the fundie-marketeers are packing it with pseudo-porno, such as the "sex appeal" of shows like How to Build a Human ... judging solely by the adverts, I'd say it's a show about how to have a better sex life. But if you're a fundamentalist Christian as qualified above, it may not occur to you that this icky sex-talk that you don't like is actually helpful to other people. The standards of other people don't come into play, since God is all that's important, and I think it's already noted in one form or another that God is whatever the fundie-Christian (in this case) decides it is, and says the same. So suddenly one's outrage at Larry Flynt becomes a reason to wail lamentations about biology in education. One's disgust at the T&A comedies of the 1980s fuels rage against films of greater informational value. Find the film Whore 2. (I'm damn sure this is the one, even by the mere scraps of information available on it.) Next time you hear a fundamentalist Christian talk about someone "glorifying immorality" show them this film. Trainspotting is too easy, and I haven't seen Irréversible yet, but I hope to make my point as such about drugs. Violence? What about Reservoir Dogs makes you want to pick up a gun and run with gangsters? The point being that in their brand of selfishness, the fundie-Christians make the blanket presumption that they are, indeed, smarter than everyone else. Think of it that way: because the fundie-Christian can't figure it out, it must therefore be that nobody else can figure it out. Therefore, it becomes the fundie-Christian's logical duty to save everybody from the presence of danger, speak none of the consequences at this point.

And no, it doesn't make sense.

But it depends on what's important to whom.

Americans agree that the law protects their rights. To what degree is another issue entirely. But the fundie-Christian's duty to the self-cum-God is quite obviously more important to that fundie-Christian than his/her legal right to be a fundie-Christian in the first place. I never understood the point of cutting one's own throat that way.

So maybe to me the conditions which most directly affect my station in the world (e.g. law, economy) receive the broadest and deepest of my considerations, but if I was a fundie-Christian, the deepest would be to God and there would be no broad dimension.

There is no proper beginning to the process. It is religious faith in media res, and entirely dependent upon mise-en-scene. Sorry, I just had to finish up on a Hollywood note.

But when I aim the words idiots at this degree of fundamentalism, it's because it is honestly beyond my comprehension to figure how it is people come to be so antithetical to even their own growth and progress.

Cutting the baby in half was supposed to be a demonstration of a principle. The fundie-Christians seem to have made it into a necessity of faith.

Notes:

° Humanism: "Our ethical secular ideal has its own diciplines of mind and heart and gives people the means of finding faith in the ultimate meaning of human life that were once provided by the more conventional religions." (Armstrong, xix)

- Armstrong, Karen. A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. New York: Knopf, 1994.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
If God is assumed to be utterly beyond human comprehension, inutterably powerful...blah blah, etc etc. How is it that ANYONE can claim to know 'his' everway to such an extent to
a. condemn others to hell
b. say they are 100% sure they are right
c. say all others are wrong
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


First of all, it is NOT the Christian who "condemn others to Hell". Actually a person condemns themselves by refusing to accept the message of God.

Christians are "100% sure they are right" because of God's word. Also mixed in is a fair portion of faith.

The Christian will point out, often passionately, where the "world" differs from their strongly held beliefs. A Christian should point out the way of God and let the individual choose. Obviously, if a person is an adherant to a particular belief, they will naturally conclude that said belief is the "right" one, or they wouldn't have embraced it to begin with. Consequently other opinions are deemed incorrect.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
It must be that thinking thing that is such a problem, or maybe I just don't get it. But this is the way I see it: If God is all those assumed things, then certainly he has the ability to allow religions that all 'see' into the truth of God. And even if s/he made this one religion that had a line that said 'only this way is right' could it still not be completely valid to assume that God is still able, even with that statement, to make religions that are also correct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Could be...

This forms the basis for a movement called "ecumenicism" (hope I spelled it right) which claims that ALL religions are essentially right insofar as each one in its own way has sought "God". The common ground is a certain piety and desire to know a higher being.

Personally I do not hold to this view, but many do. I admit it is a possibility. However, the Bible does not teach ecumenicism.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
My main question boils down to this, 'How is it that Christians can say that everyone else is going to hell and beleive it as a 100% fact when their own 'word of god' tells them its impossible to know anything completely about god.'
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think an assumption is sometimes made that Christians somehow get a kick out of the notion that people will ultimately be separated from God. This is not true. We are commanded in the Bible to "spread the word" so that no one can say "Hey, I didn't know." This means that we are to have compassion on unbelievers. Which I do. I am not being judgemental. It is my belief. One's beliefs should never lead to a haughty attitude. Especially Christians. If you meet a Christian that seems delighted with the notion of you "going to Hell", he is probably a new Christian who is not firmly rooted in the word, or else they aren't a Christian at all. Some still has the misguided "us vs. them" attitude. But it is not a game. It is a solemn duty.

In the end, it is a choice left up to the individual. God will not force us to be saved. He made us with a free will. This is something the angels do not have. We are higher than the angels in terms of importance, because we are autonomous and have "free will".

Also, we do not have to know God completely (nor CAN we with our finite minds). But we should seek him and know as completely as possible that which he has revealed to us. He revealed his will to us through the Bible. If you want to "know God" as far as possible, then read and study the Oracles of God, a.k.a. The Holy Bible.

Hope this helps.

-Mike

 

Hmmm ...

I'll raise that stake.

This is an acceptable counterpoint you've provided, Ekimklaw.

However, given the number of Christians who do raise issues of condemnation, salvation, and separation, I would hope you can see where the "erroneous" perspective comes from.

Because it is worth pointing out that, as God works in mysterious ways--so to speak--those alleged Christians who raise issues of condemnation, salvation, and separation run a high risk of "speaking on God's behalf".

There is a Sufi story which, at its most basic level, speaks as follows: One day an impatient man went to a dervish in order that he might gain the wisdom that would guide him to patience. After several tests and lessons went awry, the dervish commanded the impatient man, "Go to the ____ Pass and wait by the withered tree in the shape of a Y. Offer refreshment and rest to all passers-by." So the impatient man went out to the pass and eventually found the tree. He cast off his pack at the base of the tree and put his gun in the Y of the tree. He sat beside the road for many weeks, offering food and water and rest to weary travelers. One day a traveler hurried along the pass, and the man called out to him, "Please, stop and take refreshment for your travels. Regain your strength." It was not that the traveler did not stop, but that he continued along his way without even acknowledging the man. The impatient man, affronted at such treatment, took his gun from the tree and shot the traveler dead. Whereupon the withered tree began to bloom anew, and a voice spoke to the man: "He whom you killed was a murderer on the way to the most heinous crime of his career ...." (Add a few religious-sounding proclamations.)

At its most basic level, murder does not even come into it, so we can leave the act of shooting aside. (Yes, we can. It's actually irrelevant except by an almost paradoxical twist.) So it goes, though, that where we see "murder", the reality of the circumstance indicates that the murder was, by the balance of lives saved. Furthermore, it must be taken to mind that the blooming of the tree and the divine-seeming voice are mere narrative conventions. Because of the nature of the dervish stories, we can presume that the man either learned from his crime or did not, either was punished or was not, and either lived to regret his crime or not. But at its most basic level, God works in mysterious ways, and it is not the place of the seeker to question those methods.

And, as a note to the first atheistic objection that comes to mind: Without knowledge of the foundation of the method, we cannot properly judge the method. It works best to simply look at the story from the human perspective, and dwell on what would be the objective reality of the result.

Thus, we might look at those Christians who voice condemnation and wonder where they get off pretending they know the ways of God.

And, to that point:

Even were I to grant that the Bible is God's word, there is no reason in the Universe that I would dare pretend that any one person can definitively claim to bear the right interpretation. Literalism is as literalism does, for instance, but people still define words differently.

Which is the problem of putting the cart before the horse.

The Bible, however, relies on other religions. The Great Flood predates the Bible by millennia. Elements of the Christ myth are borrowed from India. The Holy Trinity is a reflection of the European-pagan Triune God. The Bible may not teach the ecumenical way, but it depends on it. It is from these other searches for God that the Bible assembles its way.

If it's not true, some of the "real Christians" ought to shut the yap of the noisy faction of "false Christians". I understand why the Quakers stay so quiet, but every once in a while their ilk needs to tell other sects to shut the hell up. That televangelism is a multibillion-dollar enterprise speaks volumes about modern Christianity. That the "real Christians" in America permit this defaming of their religion by the televangelists and the "religious right" political establishment without any significant resistance is also telling.

That's the problem with modern evangelism: it's largely a joke. Christian evangelism in the 21st century in the US is a mess of simple rhetoric, Sunday school propaganda run amok. If I conducted a "safe sex" lecture at a school by having unprotected sex with junkies, would I really be conveying a serious message about the benefits of safe sex? Take a look around at the state of Christianity in the United States: how can it be expected to bear any credibility whatsoever? The Catholic Church, long dangerous to children--sexual abuse notwithstanding--has suffered a moral and morale collapse of unseen proportions. Certain Baptists churches still prescribe dress codes for women. I can say with the confidence of experience that Christianity in general seems to work to suppress the reporting of and intervention against child abuse. Creationists, waving the Bible, demand in effect a revocation of the scientific method so that their religion might be scientific truth. Christian PAC's work in Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, and elsewhere to make other people's sex lives their business. Fellatio is against the law in several states. Chick Ministry tracts pop up in phone booths and on store shelves, placed by cowards too frightened to openly proclaim their faith. If God wants you to tell people so that they know, does He wonder why nobody's listening? Or is this cacophony of silliness merely God's mysterious plan? (It is, by some standards, but we're examining the Christian standard right now.)

Goshy, I have to admit, I love these kinds of declarations. So:

• The Devil is God's servant (angels have no free will)
• Therefore, either the Serpent isn't Satan, or else the Serpent tempted Adam and Eve on God's orders.
• And God, knowing all, knew that Adam and Eve would take the bait.
• Thus, the fall of man is God's will.

• Hence, I'm wondering what God's problem is in the sense that if God won't force people to salvation, what was the point of making us so that we are inherently unsatisfactory to Him by condition of our birth (which, as some anti-abortionists have it, God has blessed)?

That's one way of looking at it.

Fair enough.

That's one way of looking at it. But I still wonder about words like him and revealed. Unlike the atheists, where I part from the Christians is that I cannot figure out why someone would bother making such a fuss about such a miniscule God.

Do we leave out the borrowed stuff? Or is that part of the Oracle of God?

I can't speak for our topic poster, but I think it does. I know I've chided you some in this post, but I think you've made an excellent testament toward the questions presented.

However, I would submit to our topic poster that the response, being composed of elements familiar, ought to bear that familiarity in mind. Heck, sh@t happens.

thanx much,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I appreciated the posts Tiassa.
Eki, I appreciate that you responded, I have no doubts sometimes you throw up your hands and yell whats the point, these sinners will never understand. well at least im listening.

Was it only aparent to me? Or did you just condemn me to Hell using some kind of round about logic. That was my point, who are you to say who god condemns and who he does not. Perhaps God understands my reasons for refusing the message, why do you feel so sure that he actually condems anyone when by your own admitance god is beyond understanding.

No, I have opinions; some strong, some not so strong. But as strong as my strongest opinions are I always recognize the fact that EVERYONE believes they are right, so the statistical possibility of me being right is slim to none. Your obsession with an afterlife prevents you from having such logic.

There are many things that you believe that are not actually 'taught' in the Bible. Trinity anyone?

But 'gods word' is very contradictory, as I pointed out in another thread. And even if you still believe it is not, it is still open to so much interpretation as to be rediculous that you believe only your interpretation is correct, that is arrogent at best.

my example of your arrogance:

You have made this point many times before that any 'christian' deviating from your interpretation is somehow a 'false' christian. You must literally believe that '144,000' number as the only people going to heaven, cause it can't be any more than that, that actually are in line with your christianity.

Tiassa responded to everything else and did a good job so I'll stop there. Her comment on the angels was the funniest, and points to yet another contradiction in your holiest of infallible books.

 

Hang on, how are we sinners if we don't believe in god. If we don't believe in god, we don't believe in sin, only our own morals.

How can we be condemned to a place thats like Never Never Land, totally made up and taken from a book. A bbok that could well have been a book of bedtime stories and you gullible people misinterpreted it as gods word.

I don't see how Christians can believe in something so stupid and illogical for two thousand years, I don't even believe it and I'm sick of it.

Heres a question, do you believe in our current calenders, i.e, years etc?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
Eki, I appreciate that you responded, I have no doubts sometimes you throw up your hands and yell whats the point, these sinners will never understand. well at least im listening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's cool, but how about NOT saying things like I'm insane. That would be peachy.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
Was it only aparent to me? Or did you just condemn me to Hell using some kind of round about logic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No I did not. This is an excellent example of "failure to communicate". That you would derive from what I posted that I am condemning you to Hell is mind-boggling. Do I even KNOW you?



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
No, I have opinions; some strong, some not so strong. But as strong as my strongest opinions are I always recognize the fact that EVERYONE believes they are right, so the statistical possibility of me being right is slim to none. Your obsession with an afterlife prevents you from having such logic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Well put. Except for the "prevents you from having logic" part. Have I said that you don't have the capacity for logic? No. That is kinda rude. Please stop being rude to me. Okay?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
There are many things that you believe that are not actually 'taught' in the Bible. Trinity anyone?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The trinity is taught in the Bible. Just because the word itself does not appear is meaningless. Theologians have termed the theology of the triune God "trinity" for convenience sake. The Bible uses the term "Father, Son and Holy Spirit". This is the trinity.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
But 'gods word' is very contradictory, as I pointed out in another thread.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There are no "contradicions" in the Bible. Because you misunderstand something does not mean it is a contradiction.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
And even if you still believe it is not, it is still open to so much interpretation as to be rediculous that you believe only your interpretation is correct, that is arrogent at best.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------




That's why it is helpful to read many different translations, and to have a Greek and Hebrew word study guide handy, as I do.

You say I am arrogant about my beliefs. Hey, belief is a rather personal thing. I hold my beliefs strongly. When asked to, I share them. I do not prosyletize here. I am just expressing my beliefs. You can agree or not. I do not care. If arrogance is defined as expressing an opinion, then I guess we all are arrogant.





---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
You have made this point many times before that any 'christian' deviating from your interpretation is somehow a 'false' christian.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You give me too much credit. I do not intimately know the hearts and minds of every professed Christian. It is not for me to say who is a false Christian, and who is a true Christian. However, I am free to formulate opinions about various subjects just like any other human being.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
You must literally believe that '144,000' number as the only people going to heaven, cause it can't be any more than that, that actually are in line with your christianity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A silly mischaracterization. Do you know me?



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
Tiassa responded to everything else and did a good job so I'll stop there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yeah that was a good level-headed response as always. I am a closet Tiassa fan.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
Her comment on the angels was the funniest, and points to yet another contradiction in your holiest of infallible books.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Yeah that was a knee-slapper alright! You must have squealed with glee over that one.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Later...


-Mike

 

Re: Hmmm ...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, to that point:Even were I to grant that the Bible is God's word, there is no reason in the Universe that I would dare pretend that any one person can definitively claim to bear the right interpretation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Multiple translations will reveal shadings of language and a good Greek/Hebrew dictionary works wonders.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lotuseatsvipers wrote:
Literalism is as literalism does, for instance, but people still define words differently.Which is the problem of putting the cart before the horse.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



People have founded entire religions on one scripture. This is foolish. The Bible is a multifaceted diamond. What on the surface may seem contradictory is, upon further study, revealed to be perfectly harmonious. I have experienced this myself. As I study I run across things and think "Hmmm.... that seems contradictory." Upon further study, it usually works itself out quite clearly.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
The Bible, however, relies on other religions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I must respectfully disagree...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
The Great Flood predates the Bible by millennia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Obviously if every human (or most humans) descended directly from the family of Noah they would carry the flood story with them as they spread out over Earth. Oral tradition would be passed down through the ages. It has been shown that nearly every race of people on Earth (including highly isolated primitive tribes) have somewhere in their oral tradition a flood story. Through the ages, some cultures put it into writing.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
Elements of the Christ myth are borrowed from India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Can you be specific?



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
The Holy Trinity is a reflection of the European-pagan Triune God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Which one is that? Again, could you be specific?


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
The Bible may not teach the ecumenical way, but it depends on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, respectfully, it doesn't. The Bible clearly states numerous times that IT is truth and all others are false.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
That televangelism is a multibillion-dollar enterprise speaks volumes about modern Christianity. That the "real Christians" in America permit this defaming of their religion by the televangelists and the "religious right" political establishment without any significant resistance is also telling.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am continually sickened by the trelevangelists. When I see them on TV I always think "They are doing much more harm than good." The Benny Hinn, Jesse Duplantis, and Kenneth Copeland's of the world are really attacking Christianity from the inside out. They are humiliatingly bad. But we needn't toss the baby out with the bath water. Just because they are what they are doesn't mean all of Christianity is that way.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
Take a look around at the state of Christianity in the United States: how can it be expected to bear any credibility whatsoever? The Catholic Church, long dangerous to children--sexual abuse notwithstanding--has suffered a moral and morale collapse of unseen proportions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree that there is a problem in the Catholic Church.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
Certain Baptists churches still prescribe dress codes for women.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



None that I know of. I am a Baptist.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
I can say with the confidence of experience that Christianity in general seems to work to suppress the reporting of and intervention against child abuse.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Be specific. This inflamatory remark begs specifics.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
Creationists, waving the Bible, demand in effect a revocation of the scientific method so that their religion might be scientific truth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am a creationist. I see huge problems with evolution yet it is taught as fact in public schools. The Christians I know want equal time. Teach both and let the children decide. But the evolutionist will not tolerate any other view taught in school as they know the theory of evolution as they know it would soon cease to be.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
Christian PAC's work in Oregon, Colorado, Vermont, and elsewhere to make other people's sex lives their business.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



When "other people's sex lives" result in billions of dollars of disease control and hospitalization, not to mention welfare for single mothers, these "private" actions suddenly impact my life directly. This is painfully obvious every April 15th.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
Fellatio is against the law in several states.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You must mean "in public". There is nothing wrong with public decency. If you are suggesting that private acts of fellatio are punishable offenses, I'd wager this "crime" is seldom reported.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
Chick Ministry tracts pop up in phone booths and on store shelves, placed by cowards too frightened to openly proclaim their faith.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------




This is not cowardice! It is passive witnessing. Would you rather have someone getting in your face? Most people will put a contact number on the back, so the person can call if they decide to accept Jesus. Give me a break. This is hypercriticism.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
If God wants you to tell people so that they know, does He wonder why nobody's listening?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yeah, I'm sure God is up there scratching his head alright.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
Goshy, I have to admit, I love these kinds of declarations. So:
• The Devil is God's servant (angels have no free will)
• Therefore, either the Serpent isn't Satan, or else the Serpent tempted Adam and Eve on God's orders.
• And God, knowing all, knew that Adam and Eve would take the bait.
• Thus, the fall of man is God's will.
• Hence, I'm wondering what God's problem is in the sense that if God won't force people to salvation, what was the point of making us so that we are inherently unsatisfactory to Him by condition of our birth (which, as some anti-abortionists have it, God has blessed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No need to get condescending. The angels have a will. They were created with a will. The difference is, nothing is hidden from them. I didn't intend to get into a deep theological discussion of angels. I was making a response and drew a destinction between angels and mankind.

I wrote this:
"God will not force us to be saved. He made us with a free will. This is something the angels do not have. We are higher than the angels in terms of importance, because we are autonomous and have "free will"."

I erred in my statement somewhat. I should have said "He made us with free will and then requires faith". and "We are higher than the angels in terms of importance, because we are autonomous and have "free will" and there is much hidden from us requiring us to have faith in the unseen. I appologize. I sometimes post late at night and I guess I did not make the COMPLETE point here. Thanks for calling me on it. Sorry.

I wasn't there when Satan "fell" so I can only go by what I am told in the Bible. According to scripture Satan had a will as all angels apparently do. He rejected God. His motivation? HE wanted to be God. A separation occured and satan was "banished' to Earth.

As for why God created Satan to begin is a good question. One I have pondered many times.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
Unlike the atheists, where I part from the Christians is that I cannot figure out why someone would bother making such a fuss about such a miniscule God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Hey, if I thought God was miniscule I wouldn't waste my time on him either. But "[my] God is an awesome God."




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
Do we leave out the borrowed stuff? Or is that part of the Oracle of God?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The Bible as it exists is God's word -- in my opinion.


I'll post more about the doctrine of angels when I can.


Thanks Tiassa... always a pleasure.

-Mike

 

Does it strike a chord? Anyways, for your sake I'll refrain.

Wow you caught on to my whole point finally. You condemned me to hell because you said all 'non-believers' go to hell. By your definitions I am a nonbeliever. Get it?

The logic I was referring to is the idea that others can also be right while not sharing the same view as you. You do not share this logic for fear of an afterlife (thats how I see it), but no matter what the reason you do NOT share that logic.

This is a stretch. Is there a line that says father son and holy spirit are one? I have no idea, do share, and if there is one, I retract that statement and ask for forgiveness

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I do not know the full extent of your beliefs but I think it would be a safe bet to say that there are things in your creed that are simply assumed but not explicitly stated in the bible. Be this as it may.

But other human beings don't believe people that are in disagreement are going to burn in everlasting torment. And it is not for you to say who is and is not a true Christian, but in the short time I have been conversing with you, you have at least twice said that christians that believe or do a certain thing are not truly christians (in one case you said it wasn't a 'true' conversion, same diff).

Did you read what I said? Or read the first post? You are changing how and why I defined you as arrogant.

Do you deny that the 144,000 number is literal? Cause if you do...well that just creates a huge mess doesn't it, like what parts of the bible are actual literal and which are not. With a number that small you might as well give up your faith cause you probably have as much chance of getting into heaven as I do.

I miss the irony in this, and I guess it doesn't matter whether or not you actually like tiassa(I have no idea if that was true or not). But you did not respond to the angel statement. why not?

And I did giggle pretty hard(inside), it was good. A good reply is a good reply no matter how you treat it with sarcasm.
edit:
****your last post hadn't loaded when I posted this ekim, sorry*****

 

<table cellpadding="10"><tr><td bgcolor="#fffffc">The Christians I know want equal time. Teach both and let the children decide. But the evolutionist will not tolerate any other view taught in school as they know the theory of evolution as they know it would soon cease to be. </td></tr></table>

The Noah's flood story is quite obviously a myth based upon the Gilgamesh epic. Obviously it didn't happen, one only has to look at the lack of supporting evidence for it and the evidence contrary to it. eg. in the fossil record, the records of civilisations that lived uninterrupted throughout the flood without getting very wet, the fact that it is physically impossible, and if possible would kill everything in several different ways.

If you don't consider these compelling reasons not to teach this garbage in schools, consider also that:

- it is totally unscientific. Perhaps it should belong in a comparative religion class, but it should not venture within 100 yards of a science classroom.

- it is practically useless. Young Earth Creationism can not be used to get oil out of the ground, provides no cosmological insights and is biologically worthless. The general problem here is that it makes no predictions or makes predictions that are obviously false.

- it is religious in nature, since it claims the existence of a god. And worse, proclaims the existence of the Christian God. Church-State separation prohibits that.

- Finally, if you teach creationism you have to teach every other half-baked creation theory, that involve giant spiders and sky Gods and who knows what other crazy crap.

" But the evolutionist will not tolerate any other view taught in school as they know the theory of evolution as they know it would soon cease to be."

I'd wager that most evolutionists would be quite happy with teaching dissenting views so long as they were scientific and well-supported. Evolution is a collection of differing theories itself. However, the vast majority of scientists can find no compelling reasons to support creationism. 99.85% of earth and life scientists believe in evolution, so there seems little reason why we should teach children a theory that has been so universally rejected.

If you are going to be so undiscriminating lets throw in a few phrenology lessons and a bit of astrology.

 

tiassa

Some praise.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This was in reference to the original thread starter:

I cannot see the fault in this as ANYONE is a clear reference to a lack of certainty in statistics. I would have been comfortable with a good majority. ANYONE covers lotuseatsvipers's bases pretty well. Obviously some have these traits.

The three traits do have an overwhelming support in even the histories most modified by Christians.

Of course they condemn others to hell. All those who commit sins and are not repentant are by the virtue of chucrh doctrine condemed. That alone makes that statement true. That we have a plethora of verbal and written condemnations should be sufficient as well. They go so far to even punish for these sins outside the their silly little afterlife. Does the Inquisition mean any thing to you.

As for point b. This is inherent in any religion. Christianity is almost synonomous with the word truth in their dialect. They are unashamedly obdurate in their position. Show me a Christian who believes otherwise and I will give you a number greatly exceeding that that holds the opposite.

As for c. that is sort of implied by b.

There is no defensible position that negates any part of these three.

This seems a valid question.

What does that have to do with this topic? lotuseatsvipers was talking specifically about Christians. Humanism is not a religion in the order of a Christianity or a an Islam. Sure there might be one or two branches that meet with a total of five people, but most secular minded people are resistant to the type of gathering that repulsed them from religions in the first place. The most commonly applied definition of humanism is actually a philosophy. This goes back to the Rennaisssance period. Humanists were merely an evolution of the scholastic movement. Although the defintion of religion is vague at best, most use either faith or God. These are words rejected by our kind. By defintion religions are theistic!

There some more off the wall defintions to be sure, but all the structures we would recognize are theistic in nature.

I have human values to be sure. A diety is not among them. I do not give as much credit to faith either. Those are values distinct to the religious and theistic, again by definition.

I agree that theism has no value monopolies.

We can be bitter. That is certain to accompany knowing you have the correct position and the lack of brainpower neccessary for others around you to realize it. It is more like frustration actually. It has more to do with the faith in general. I have no problem with those who would invent a god to worship to for protection and good luck. It sort of sweet actually like the dog that does tricks for its masters affection. The dog think that its rituals are the factor that brings forth biomolecules. Humans don't have that master, so they invent it, purely motivate by fear.

Is this the same "Christian reason" that led to crusades and inquisitions. The same that led to the denial of Galileo and Copernican models of our galaxy.

How is that any different than what lotuseatsvipers said?

I find no value in the rigid beliefs of some surly and obdurate individuals. Pat Robertson and his ilk are just as bad as Ohsama and his. These people are hypocrites. Let's save the fetus but execute the man. If you are going to choose a value you should probably be uniform in your belief of that value.

Fundamentalists are only fundamentaly ignorant. To be so staunch in ones opinions requires a certain amount of ignoring of the rest of us. Most people are content to go about their lives and live within the parameters of society. It only takes a couple idiots to divert their path. They do it with the power of the dollar. Ignore the environment, we'll make you rich. Ignore the rest of the worlds problems, we'll make you richer. Everybody is happy in the end because they paid and that gets them laid. It is the ultimate corruption of the inherent human survival traits.

 

The problem as I see it: God is bigger than you ... and you ... and you ....

Literalism is as literalism does. If it was that easy, why separate in to the Catholics, the Baptists, the Lutherans, the Quakers, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Mennonites, the Kingdom Hall, the Episcopals, ad nauseam?

If I say to a group of people that the car is blue, they will, without having seen the car, have different ideas of what that means. Joe might think of Cindy's blue eyes, and Cindy might think of sailing the San Juans with her father when she was 12.

Such as your response goes, I would ask that you take the instruction to honor thy mother and father, show how it is demonstrated or enacted in the Bible, and establish that the idea encompasses the whole of relations between parent and child. And then remember that, despite whatever examples you offer, I'll ask you to explain how it is that "honoring thy mother and thy father" comes to mean to lie there and take it in silence when Daddy comes into your room at night. This last, severe example is experiential of a sort. I need both hands to count the number of sex abuse survivors I knew in high school who didn't tell on Daddy because of the commandments. Or I could look to a friend who used to get into knock-down, drag-out fights with her mother, including one where the mother didn't like the boyfriend because the mother wanted the daughter to go to the prom with someone else.

No matter how much a Greek/Hebrew dictionary helps, I would take a moment to laugh openly at anyone who pretended to bear the right interpretation of the whole of the Bible--and therefore, as the assertion has it--the whole of God.

I agree, in general.

The Bible is a heavily-edited, politically-determined anthology.

Says you. Of course, while that's part of the point,

But when we get into ideas like original sin, the necessity of salvation, and the power of God, people tend to get very Biblical; I've heard it asserted that nowhere in the Bible does it say that God is omnipotent or omnipresent, yet that is the foundation for 2,000 years of religion, isn't it? And suddenly things don't work out so well.

For instance, I would look to you and simply ask you to describe the Devil. What is it? Who is it? Is it even a who? Whence comes it? Whence derives its power? What is its actual authority?

And, of the multifaceted diamond, do you know why there are four Gospels? Because of Irenaeus of Lyons, who noted that there are four compass points, four principal seasons, and four primary elements--why should there be more than four Gospels?

Yes, it really was that stupid. (Irenaeus' explanation, that is.)

And he might have gotten away with it for all time, except that we found a bunch of the missing Gospels at Nag Hammadi and other sites during the 20th century. As you study, what do you study? You are relying solely on human interpretation to tell you that this is the word of God. It's like a magazine anthology: Twenty Years of Literature--selections from the annals of _____ magazine. Now you have, say, twenty of the "best" stories published in the magazine. But that hardly constitutes the whole of the publication catalog. So it is with the Bible.

Well, in the end, as long as it works out for you, that's all anyone can ask. Of course, the application of the concept becomes vital. For instance, those guys who got busted recently for their Bible study classes: it worked out rather nicely for them to not spare the rod. Until, that is, someone examined the merits of that resolution. They beat a child bloody for Jesus. Suffer the little children, indeed.

Leaving it simply at your own resolution is tantamount to being moral by setting moral standards designed to accommodate your existing habits.

Fair enough ... as I look down the post, I see your reasons for that, too.

Fair enough. Except that there exists in cuneiform the tale of Ea warning Artarhasis of a flood. It predates the Old Testament by "thousands of years" (Wenke, 354).

Furthermore, the common gene among humans is called the "Eve gene" because it is found in women. If we were all descended from Noah, the gene would be found in men.

Probably will be in the next post. I have to do some digging. I think it's in Armstrong, though I may be wrong. It's a matter of searching through the right books. However, if I recall correctly, the idea springs from the period of the Hebrews in Egypt; Indus influence came in with traders, and this situation creates the exposure of Judaism to ideas that eventually include the concept of maitreya, the world teacher. I'll pull it together for you.

Well, there is no one name, as the pagans never went on Inquisitions of such a grand scale and specific intent. Maiden/mother/crone is the most common triune goddess known to the Western new age movement; I'll pull up some broader data, though. However, we can look at this point to Irish history and start out with Banba/Fodhla/Eire, with whom the Milesians dealt in their taking of Ireland. Dianic paganism seeks the mysteries of the ancient triple-goddess Diana, of Roman influence--there exists throughout Western history an association with triune figures.

Well, if we assume, for instance, that the story of Noah and the Flood is the only legitimate retelling, then I see how we can assume that any other philosophies borrowed from other religions are only legitimate when morphed into Christianity. Personally, I find the notion laughable and arrogant, but that's just me.

You think about the harm, but what do you or any of your Christian neighbors do to protect and defend the message of Christ? If it is God's will that these false speakers bear so much influence on His Word, well ... God works in mysterious ways, indeed.

Gosh, so many people are so willing to put their focus on the Catholics. On the other hand, whatever problems the Church is having--it's God's will. Whatever it is that God intends to accomplish by such a Plan, it is well beyond human comprehension.

I hung out with a Southern Baptist Convention crowd for a short period by proxy of my high school girlfriend's interest. She did not remain with the congregation long; she could not stand to be told that she could not wear pants. And she could not stand to be told that she should not engage in college and career planning because women belong in the home.

One ... two ... three ... seven. I can mark seven points in my life when I gave counsel to sexual abuse survivors who did not report the abuse at the time it happened because, as they were taught the commandments by family and preacher and congregation, "Honor thy mother and father" means to not say anything bad about them. To say that Daddy hurt you like that is to say something bad about Daddy, and that makes God angry ... yadda, yadda, yadda, and a bunch more Sunday-school crap. A couple of them even tried to tell what was going on at the time and were rebuked by their immediate community for speaking ill of mommy or daddy. Regardless of what any one person tells me they think the Bible means, nobody can erase or fix what has happened--nobody can change the human result.

How would you propose we give that equal time? Creationism is not science. Equal time? How many hours would you like children to be in school each day? How many hours would you like to be spent on each of the major myths? Christianity? Hindu? If we teach it as anthropology, a general survey of creation tales can be examined--I have a whole book of them somewhere in the house. It would be an interesting course, I admit.

Wow. Where to begin with that?

We'll start with single mothers. Why blame only the mother? What about the fathers who leave them to welfare?

Should I wonder about Christians and sex education? It's well enough to demand that parents should educate their kids about sex, except that they demonstrably, collectively do a horrible job of it. Simply saying, "Don't do it, don't talk about it, don't feel it" doesn't actually work. Pretending that kids aren't having sex at 12 and 13 is idiotic. And no, don't talk about declining standards. We find in the footnotes of Lysander Spooner that in 1875 the age of consent for females was 10 years old, and that buying their consent with gifts and money was legal. (Of course, drinking alcohol on Sunday was a heinous crime.)

I would ask you to be specific about the billions of dollars spent on disease control and hospitalization. After all, I would hope you're not referring to HIV, since in the US, President Reagan chose, based upon his Christian conscience, to not take any action against the spread of HIV because he viewed it as "God's punishment for gays". According to C. Everett Koop, Reagan did not use the terms "AIDS", "HIV", or "Human Immunodeficiency Virus" until the sixth year of his office, preferring instead to ask, "Everett, how's it going with that gay measles?"

And as to April 15th--talk to the Defense Department, the Republican party, the Drug Warriors, and the like. But as to how painfully obvious, and assuming that taxes are generally too high anyway, what portion of your taxes goes to pay for the negative results of "other people's sex lives"?

Lastly, do you eat meat? Do you drink any alcohol? Do you drink coffee? Do you drive a car? Is your home heated by coal or oil? What is your local electrical source? When we get into paying for the damage done by the conduct of others, it becomes painfully obvious that we're paying for that, too.

Hell, my tax money just went to pay to kill people in Afghanistan and other nations. And it goes toward the killing of Americans, the theft of private property and money, and the destruction of American lives as we see in the Drug War. And it also goes to pay for fixing some of that damage, though the government hates fixing the damage.

Such is life.

No, I do not.

In several states of the Union, and I believe Georgia is one of them, Louisiana, I think is another, and I've heard either five or seven states, consensual fellatio in the privacy of your own bedroom is felonious.

Seldom reported? Well, perhaps. But destroying a life unnecessarily, here and there, for Jesus, is a good thing? Think of the sodomy laws. Georgia I'll laugh at specifically here. The state won the right to make anti-sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick, before the Supreme Court, but the majority had no legal, constitutional support for their decision, relying instead on the presumption of religious values and seeking justification in English laws dating back to the 16th century.

Sneaking into stores to surreptitiously hide tracts? Having worked retail before, I've pulled many, many tracts off the shelves. Wouldn't be so bad if it was a bookstore, but they're rather conspicuous and ugly among crystal and fine wood. Shoving them into the coin slots of phone booths? At least the insane man in Hawaii who gave me the sickeningly dangerous AIDS tract had the courage to stand on the streetcorner and bellow and spit all over people while his assistant practically chased them down to shove tracts into their hands.

I would rather that, since many Christians feel the need to be evangelical, they do it with some respect and some taste. I should go from church to church on Sundays hiding Satanic pamphlets in the hymnals. Better yet, Hustler pinups.

Can't say I've ever seen it on a Chick tract. I've seen it on a couple of other tracts, but why should my Gatorade tell me I'm a sinner when I take it off the shelf? Who the hell put that end-of-the-world-is-nigh proclamation with the popsicles?

Sorry, no breaks on this one. Imagine standing before God: "I did your work, Lord. I spread your word. But I was afraid of being criticized, so I trespassed on private property, violating local laws and rules, so that I could hand out tracts, never have to think for myself, and never have to explain it to anyone."

How about if these Christians give the rest of us the break, eh?

Well, considering that those who accidentally follow the wrong version of the Word of God (after all, there is diversity among Christians; they don't all believe the same things) receive the same punishment as those who never bother in the first place, I think it's fair to say that whatever God's plan is, it's mysterious.

Well, I'm not the God who created a human being to be unsatisfactory to my needs by the simple fact of birth. Quite frankly, the idea of being born in sin is offensively ridiculous.

However, in terms of the corrected statement, I still must take issue. Or a couple. If nothing is hidden from the angels, it seems there is no learning curve. Thus, the Devil cannot repent, and God/Jesus' love and redemption has specific limits.

Of Satan's fall, most people attribute more details to the Bible than are actually there. I invite you to demonstrate biblically the statements you have made about the Devil.

That God makes us with free will and then requires faith only reaffirms that humans, by proxy of their blessed creation by God's will, are unsatisfactory in the eyes of God.

The Seattle Mariners won 116 games last year. My team is an awesome team.

However, the range of what God is and can be is entirely miniscule. Something can exist that is separated from God. This is only because so many restrictions have been placed on God that you can fit him into the nightstand of an hourly-rate motel in the red-light district.

Fair enough. I won't deny you your opinion.

And Mike ... if I truly do sound condescending at a few points: Honestly, what am I supposed to think when two-thousand years of difficult and intellectual work cannot solve certain riddles, and then modern Christians either ignore the riddles entirely or treat them as solved? Your doctrine of angels, for instance. I look forward to it because, generally speaking, most angelic doctrines are too narrowly-constructed to accommodate the whole of angelic lore. If, for instance, such doctrine can be set clearly, you can become the first person in the world to definitively prove the necessity of the Devil in the Christian scheme.

I'd buy you a beer for that, at least.

thanx much,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Must I ALWAYS be oppositional?

Teg

I'm having trouble figuring out exactly what you're after in the first part of your most recent post.

However, as I go through your post, I'm counting off references to Christian and Christianity. This is part of the point. In fact, I look at where you write,

and smile because that's my point.

Teg, would you do us all a favor and look at the section of text I cited at the beginning of my post, (Insert Title Here)?

To say that logic means nothing to people with religion is just a little bitter and inaccurate.

There are non-theistic religions. Some of them depend heavily on logic. Humanism has been accused of being a non-theistic religion, hence its inclusion.

The Catholics, as I've often noted, are exceptionally logical beyond two specific a priori.

However, I am compelled to reject the idea of retroactively narrowing the application of your words. You were quite specific (or, rather, not specific enough) when you continued and wrote: It is theistic logic or better yet lack thereof.

Christian logic, sure. No objections.

Theistic logic? Many objections.

That has more to do with your assertions toward theists in general. As you noted, Lotuseatsvipers was talking about Christians specifically. There is, believe it or not, a huge difference.

Yes, dictionaries again. They're more reliable than people. The Nazis were a political group. Would you like to tell me that the structure was not religious merely because it lacked a specific godhead?

One of the points Raithere and I are discussing in the aforementioned Back to a proper discussion thread is the basic presupposition. Even "philosophical" humanism meets a point where it puts its foot down. However, in terms of dictionaries, I point to two, taken from my wonderfully useful OmniDictionary, for the word religious:

Or, perhaps, on religion:

I included that last one because I like it, and I've often said that religion represents our ignorance of the Universe. But both Webster's 1913 dictionary and Wordnet 1.7 recognize both religion and religious as not requiring deities. Such a requirement is your own standard, and, as such, an issue that only you can deal with.

What constitutes "our kind"? Or are you speaking on behalf of atheists everywhere? Because everyone bears faith in something. Aside from that, that such words are rejected is an issue that only you can deal with.

Tell me, Teg, is Thou shall not kill a religious value, or a human value? Are the values which make, say, raping your mother wrong religious values, or are they human values?

A deity is not a value in such a sense, though can be represented as such if religion is ever quantified.

I'm so tempted here to take the jab that I thought atheists were supposed to be smarter. However, it's both beside the point and unnecessarily harsh at this point. However, as to the dilemma expressed in the above citation, ask a clinical psychologist or other such counselor. I think you'll find the sentiment is widespread among humans. It's damn near universal in Western culture.

But we're all frustrated, Teg. I'm frustrated at the lack of coherent, mature thought coming from Christianity in general. I'm frustrated at the general atheistic need to keep pressing that line instead of dealing with more important issues. I'm frustrated at the lack of cohesion among pagans. I'm frustrated at the existence of the GOP.

Purely?

Strangely, I caught an amazing line on a show called How to Build a Human: The Secret of Sex, on The Learning Channel. They were interviewing Max, who was born female and wrestled with identity issues. Max was preparing to undergo testosterone therapy (which worked, I might add, well enough to satisfy Max). He commented that, "I remember thinking at one point that God had made a mistake, which was a weird thought for me since I was raised an atheist." Now, nobody's going to claim that Max went out and found God at that point, but I found his exploitation of the God-idea fascinating. An atheist, pressed to the limits of frustration, anthropomorphized the whole of the Universe and nature that led up to his birth as a female, and declared that process mistaken.

God, in this case, served well exactly as it is supposed to: the sum of all things and all times and all ideas. As I've told others, I'm perfectly willing to use another word, but I don't know of one that suffices. "Everything", in fact, demonstrably falls short in application. Even with ideas of infinity and forever and everything, people still need a word to express a condition or state which utterly eludes their abilities to accommodate or assimilate. That word has come to be "God".

Largely, yes. Although there was, believe it or not, more thought put into the rejections of Galileo and Copernicus.

Aside from the individual words themselves, perhaps it's not.

What, does it have to be?

My oppositional nature is a result of principles. It is not the motivation of those principles. I have no obligation to be permanently oppositional. I wish American Marxists would figure that out about themselves.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I agree entirely. Of uniform belief of values, one of the things that frustrates me greatly in the world is the human tendency to reject the uniform application of values. Of course, to what degree of uniformity one takes it is another case. Often, end products are held up as cause and not result. A uniform application of such values can become a religious standard.

I tend to agree. The hairs I would split are almost irrelevant, though I find the power of the dollar to be overstated slightly. But sure. Religion is a pioneer, ahead of its time. It's not like soap adverts or hair-removal cremes or auto adverts actually changed the way people deal with information. It's religion's fault because religion was the first to use sound-bite culture and tell you that their product makes you sexy and free.

Life is a huge mess, in general. That may be a pessimistic outlook, but it's not as pessimistic as most people find it. Religion in general contributes a great deal to that mess, and even motivates parts of it. However, religion is not wholly at fault except according to the broader definitions of the word that include non-theistic ideas.

One can either work on cleaning up the mess or not. However, engaging skirmishes over the more superficial aspects of any religion or idea ends up being less productive.

I tend to think that atheism by and large cannot understand certain aspects of the religious experience, and therefore religion itself. It is one of the reasons I left atheism behind. I needed that data, that perspective. I needed to be able to communicate with people on that level. It came down to a simple set of options. In the end, it seemed that I could either treat the symptoms, attempt to treat the disease itself, or simply ignore the sickness altogether and leave the sick to wither beneath the burden of their illness.

The vaccine is made of the pathogen. The antivenin of the venom.

I infected myself deliberately so that I might cure the disease. Since not all of the symptoms can be quantified in the lab, I'm open to suggestions for alternate methods of examining them.

It's not like AIDS or West Nile. But I can neither alleviate the symptoms nor understand their relationship to the disease if I don't know they're there.

I can't do this with many things. Like I said, it's not like AIDS or West Nile. I was once advised that certain psychological results (in another person) were beyond my capability because I wasn't raped by my father at age 8. This was good advice, and true to boot.

On the other hand, there were days that I would have made that trade if I could have. Some things are just that important. Some prices become worth every penny.

It took me a long time to figure that out. It's 11 years behind me, and it's still right here with me.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I was infected for most life, I won't get into it now, its a little personal, but I figured people could infer from my first post that I was once a funda...

And tiassa I agree with Teg, I could not find the relevance in your first post(most of it anyways), and was left baffled to the point of not being able to reply. not a biggie.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

From what I have gathered here the fundamental question "If God is so incredibly unknowable, then how can people claim to know his every will so well" is obviously not something Christians can answer, at least I have yet to hear a response of value. Another blip in the radar I guess

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Lotus

Well, that's because the first portion of it responds to Teg. Beyond that, I can only ask what doesn't make sense, and hope to answer you.

Or, should I have just yelled "Burn the Fundies!" and been done with it?

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I should mention ....

Lotuseatsvipers

I should mention that I doubt you'll get a good answer out of fundamentalists. I've never engaged fundamentalism in the same way I've engaged fundamentalism. Fundamentalism is one of the most apparent symptoms of the disease, and I have yet to figure out how to examine it from the inside without ceasing to examine the situation at all. One of my more common criticisms of fundamentalist Christianity, for instance, is that the answer to deep theological questions is to take it on faith and cease asking. Obviously, that's problematic to my perspective and intentions.

As to getting a good answer from anyone, it might be impossible. I, for instance, can make a few educated guesses, but just like I could not address certain issues about sexual abuse because I was not sexually abused (nor am I a female, which is relevant specifically to my history with the subject), nor can I address certain points about fundamentalism because I am not fundamentalist.

thanx,
Tiassa

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Re: The problem as I see it: God is bigger than you ... and you ... and you ....

First off let me say that I really enjoy your posts. Thanks for being so level-headed.

Now to work

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
Literalism is as literalism does. If it was that easy, why separate in to the Catholics, the Baptists, the Lutherans, the Quakers, the Seventh-Day Adventists, the Mennonites, the Kingdom Hall, the Episcopals, ad nauseam?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Differences in demonations has to do more with practices as opposed to theology. Most protestants agree on what it is that sends you to Heaven. The other stuff is just haggling over minutiae.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
I would ask that you take the instruction to honor thy mother and father, show how it is demonstrated or enacted in the Bible, and establish that the idea encompasses the whole of relations between parent and child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


1. the parents being honored must be worthy of honor. That is not sinful.
2. This is Old Testement. I am a Christian... not a Jew.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
I'll ask you to explain how it is that "honoring thy mother and thy father" comes to mean to lie there and take it in silence when Daddy comes into your room at night.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This needs no answer. Obviously pedophilia and/or incest is detestable to God and Christians alike. Allowing oneself to be victimized by sin is NOT what honoring one's father and Mother was about. For detailed info about this, I'll refer you to Rabbi Whoeverberg. he will explain it to you. I am a Christian. Not a Jew.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
I need both hands to count the number of sex abuse survivors I knew in high school who didn't tell on Daddy because of the commandments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Then they were abused physically and mentally because sins of a prurient nature are NEVER condoned in the Bible.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
No matter how much a Greek/Hebrew dictionary helps, I would take a moment to laugh openly at anyone who pretended to bear the right interpretation of the whole of the Bible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I do not have a problem with it. Those that deal with the central points are clear.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
I would look to you and simply ask you to describe the Devil. What is it? Who is it? Is it even a who? Whence comes it? Whence derives its power? What is its actual authority?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Coming soon.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
And, of the multifaceted diamond, do you know why there are four Gospels? Because of Irenaeus of Lyons, who noted that there are four compass points, four principal seasons, and four primary elements--why should there be more than four Gospels?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Please cite your source.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
For instance, those guys who got busted recently for their Bible study classes: it worked out rather nicely for them to not spare the rod. Until, that is, someone examined the merits of that resolution. They beat a child bloody for Jesus. Suffer the little children, indeed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Anyone can claim to be a Christian. Jesus said "By their fruits you will know them". I know you're not trying to imply these were mainstream Christians.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
Except that there exists in cuneiform the tale of Ea warning Artarhasis of a flood. It predates the Old Testament by "thousands of years" (Wenke, 354).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The event itself predates the Old Testement by thousands of years so I'm not surprised.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
Furthermore, the common gene among humans is called the "Eve gene" because it is found in women. If we were all descended from Noah, the gene would be found in men.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Who were Noah and his wife descended from? You got it... Eve.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
I hung out with a Southern Baptist Convention crowd for a short period by proxy of my high school girlfriend's interest. She did not remain with the congregation long; she could not stand to be told that she could not wear pants. And she could not stand to be told that she should not engage in college and career planning because women belong in the home.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There are splinter denominations. None that I have ever been in, have ever restricted a woman's right to do whatever she wanted career wise. I knew of one Baptist church in my community like this. The other baptist churches saw them as oddballs.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
We'll start with single mothers. Why blame only the mother? What about the fathers who leave them to welfare?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I didn't want to write out an entire list of people. Obviously single fathers are included.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
I would ask you to be specific about the billions of dollars spent on disease control and hospitalization. After all, I would hope you're not referring to HIV, since in the US, President Reagan chose, based upon his Christian conscience, to not take any action against the spread of HIV because he viewed it as "God's punishment for gays".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



hey let's face it. People say stupid things. If reagan did say that, it was a stupid thing to say. If AIDS is God's punishment for Gays, then cirrosis of the liver is God's punishment for alcoholics, and lung cancer is God's punishment for smoking, etc. It's a misguided silly way of pointing out a behaviorally driven disease.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
I would rather that, since many Christians feel the need to be evangelical, they do it with some respect and some taste.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree totally.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If nothing is hidden from the angels, it seems there is no learning curve. Thus, the Devil cannot repent, and God/Jesus' love and redemption has specific limits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Satan can repent. He just won't.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
Of Satan's fall, most people attribute more details to the Bible than are actually there. I invite you to demonstrate biblically the statements you have made about the Devil.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I am going to post a detailed thesis on Satan/angels/etc. later.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
And Mike ... if I truly do sound condescending at a few points: Honestly, what am I supposed to think when two-thousand years of difficult and intellectual work cannot solve certain riddles, and then modern Christians either ignore the riddles entirely or treat them as solved?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I do not entertain riddles. I seek knowledge. Maybe they're the same thing. Who knows?




-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiassa wrote:
you can become the first person in the world to definitively prove the necessity of the Devil in the Christian scheme.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I don't know about "proving" it, but I will share my beliefs with you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Thanks...

-Mike

 

Tiassa

I challeng any logic that yields a belief in a deity. Logical arguments are ussually accompanied by proofs. I have yet to a good theistic proof. Creation science is just plain laughable. Under what circumstances can you imagine humans and dinosaurs coexisting? Luckily they were all flooded.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not really. Ignorant people have much in common with other differently grouped ignorant people. Many observations about the failings of one group can easily be translated to the next. They all believe in a god. That is enough for me to make assertions about them.

The first two defintions are for religious. As in I religiously take showers. I do not however belong to the shower religion. That is a huge disparity in defintions.

The last is just weird. (Can't say I've heard of the Devil's Dictionary)

The fourth may sound like a valid defintion, but is instead either a mistake on your part or the makers of the dicitionary. This is to be sure a defintion for religious and not relgion. The "as if" is the leading indicator of this fact. Religions have rules of conduct. They aren't theoretical or unsaid. They are plainly stated. That defintion is flawed.

We can debate about dictionary defintions, but what really matters is the common usage. I have never heard until now the word used to describe a structure lacking a deity. Your humanisitc friends are perverting the definition for some wierd purpose. Perhaps they are seeking approval from their theistic friends.

A deity is not included in atheistic thinking, for the very defintion of the word. Faith is often another way of saying relgion or god. It has those connotations. It can also mean a belief in somthing despite a lack of information or evidence regarding that article. Not everyone has faith. Those most inclined to doubt are often atheists. When you find an atheist who would be willing to state a faith in something then you have a case. That, however is unlikely. It is a universal trait of atheists that they are skeptical. That is the antithesis of faithful.

You shall believe in god. It is an implied value.

That the function of this site. It is the ultimate vent for our frustration. As I said before my conflict is not with you. Some religions are not annoying. The lack of membership is often the leading indicator on my scale of annoying religions. Pagans and Humanists (let them have their label...) having so small a membership says something about their integrity.

The Grand Old Party is a laughable mess. Their main party lines are money and Jesus. But really is the Democratic party any better. Maybe if more than just half the eligable voters used this privelage we might have some notable change in the social climate.

That sounds like a perfectly reasonable person. I would assuredly believe whatever that being has to say...

In other words it comes to represent their lack of understanding. That is nothing new. Theists have been stating for years that because they are ignorant a god must exist. You can define a god any way you like, but remember that either you are vague as in everything and therefore revealing of the sort of guess that leads to belief. Or you can compensate with specificity, thus revealing the parameters to attack. Perhaps the latter is why monothesim has dominated.

That is often the way my conversations with theists goes.

Q:What is it?
A:I don't know?
Q:Then how do you know it exists?
A:Because it does. It is an undescribable feeling.
Q:That is just a euphoric chemical reaction in your brain. Psychotropic drugs perform a similar function. It is just the deprivation of oxygen in your brain.
A:No.
Q:Why?
A:Because I say so.

That is the same conversation I have had with every theist. It always comes down to their rejection of science and embrace of some experience. I have felt those happy moments of peaceful harmonic dissonance. Those have not led me to a religion because I understand why it happened.

The only other reason I have found for joining is mimicry of parents. We strive to be like them and thus copy them in our actions. Patterns of behavior are hard to break.