Why are "religious" con men given free reign.

That's not quite it, but consider, for instance, that you're asking according to an incorrect standard. Cover to cover? And? Reading the Bible cover to cover is not necessarily appropriate; we already know the canon is out of chronological order, distorting the telling of the tale.

You're more about accusing per your own aesthetics, which actually is accounted for in the Bible.

The thing about people answering your questions is that even if they did have a version of all the answers, they would still be unsuitable to you because they will never meet your standard.

It's not really a matter of wondering what's wrong with you. You're after such a worthless prize, and this hatred is nothing new. Your telling sounds kind of like the right-wing columnist finding all those liberal hipster coffee shops where apparently everyone speaks a right-wing pretense no liberal ever actually hears from another.

In the end, it is likely these caricatures you describe misunderstand their scriptures; this would not be unsurprising, compared to history. To the other, though, it is clear you do not understand.

Remember, though: A lot of people won't be able to answer your childish inquisition because your questions themselves are based in ignorance. Compared to Scriptural distillations of everything in the Universe including the stuff people don't know, no, you don't actually know that much better. When the problem is that they do not satisfy your take on religious scripture, then your take on the scripture becomes relevant. And when it's clueless and accusing and devoted entirely to your own satisfaction, you're just another religious zealot making things worse.

Imagine one of those video debates between atheist and theist in which the theist actually answers all of the questions according to the atheist's discursive idyll. And then consider what a self-satisfied atheist declaring victory will have achieved: He will have won a dispute in which both people are wrong.

It's two hundred seventy-four years since Pensées philosophiques, and it's as if a proverbial pretty much everybody missed the note. Actual Christianists? Well, why would they pay any attention to Diderot? But the critics of religion? Part of the point of which criticism is that the critics are supposed to know better? Not yours? Okay, whatever. Religious zealotry is as religious zealotry does.

Remember that for many people, converting isn't actually changing religions. A Christian converting to Islam is still an Abramist. Most Satanists don't truly leave their Christendom or Islam behind, simply change roles within the story. Textually, the Ninth Statement makes the point very nearly explicitly. Also, Gardnerian witchcraft can become an imposed historical interpretation with many unresolved interpretive stations, but what makes it so attractive to Christianists falling away is its basic structural commonality and apparent advocacy of goodness. And where these conversions away from Christianity intersect with identity, empowerment, and aesthetics, we ought not be surprised to find atheism similarly oriented. The atheistic identity seeks empowerment within familiar aesthetics. This is both practical and circumstantial. That is, there are reasons why it works out this way.

When I ask that controversial question regarding what people know about what they discuss and criticize, or that other, apparently confusing one, about why anyone would let people they already know are wrong set the boundaries of discourse, the protests and befuddlement do make a certain amount of practical sense. After all, how much effort and resource should an atheist spend learning which particulars of religion? And, honestly, the answer depends on each atheist, and their decisions about political argument.

And when it comes to political argument, religious zealots having it out such that everyone is declaring victory in an dispute by which none of the disputants are actually correct is still just a bunch of religious zealots making a bunch of noise.

If you encountered one who had, would you know?

According to what definition of truth?

Remember, you're asking questions according to your own priorities. Cover to cover? Yes, there are cover-to-cover Christians, but the record clearly shows that cover to cover is not the way to read the Bible. Sinister confusion? Hey, I have a question: Are ignorant, accusing atheists who demand to know what is wrong with the people who fail to satisfy them really so awful, or are they just people? For the most part, people seem to be well-intended, even to the point that we can wonder at the definition of being well-intended. For instance, do you actually think you're being rude or inappropriate? Some people disdain the pretense that they could be inappropriate, and talk about what's wrong with others, instead; there are also those who justify themselves, and they, too, talk about what's wrong with others. Perdurabo prefaces his lies by recalling Bacon: "What is truth, said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer." Over a century later, his point still stands.

Thus:

Well, that kind of depends on how we define truth.

The answer that no, actually, it's not, is a neurotic mess, and likely near the heart of what you hope to indict. The answer that yes, it is, becomes a bit more figurative. In either case, though, we cannot escape basic questions of faith and mystery.

Experientially, we already recognize some of the problems with certain manners of faith. But your question here reflects the pretense of something sinister, and compared to much more mundane behavioral realities of conditioning, imperfect comprehension, mundane living priorities, and what we might describe as neurotic tension, it seems easy to overlook the point of mystery.

And if it seems a pitiable excuse that they are frail and confused, with priorities awry because that's just how their lives and the world around them have gone, that makes them as perfectly and pathetically human as the next person.

Some Sufis refer to it, generally, as being earthsick. There is an old Arabic poem that includes a consideration about how, if another requires such crookedness, even one who strives to be better still has his jahl about him. Modern Christians often discuss the prospect of being born into sin; the question of our human frailty does not simply attend being physically weak or slow or infirm, but also the health of our psyches and suceptibility to corruption. In more secular literature, how many heroes must necessarily be tragic, and in that context we might consider how any given juxtaposition of heroic virtue and tragedy actually works.

Some months ago, we discussed↗ related aspects:

• As you read through other various scriptures and lores from around the world, you will find much seemingly implicit sentiment that the ultimate reality is what it is, and the stories deal with mundane questions of daily life. It seems worth reminding that, in history, philosophy has, at times, been something of a luxury; the underlying philosophies of religion are, generally, even more esoteric than those of politics, economics, or history.

• Compared to daily life, it seems worth noting that if Francis Barrett was apparently born to a humble family, he was of sufficient means to fail repeatedly at attempted balloon flight, in addition to translating and speculating on Qabalistic and Christianist-metaphysical manuscripts.

• If the Salish people don't happen to have finely resolved and metaphysically determined tables describing which angel has what authority over which day of the week, and, furthermore, the daily schedules of diverse angels given which authority over what hours on any given day of the week, there might be a reason. I'm pretty certain they also never invented an invisible college, either.​

In a related issue, only a few weeks later, I reminded↗ someone else:

• While notions of gods and celestial influence allude to grand and complex systems, what people seek therein pertains to everyday life.

• Here is a contrast: Existential questions of life and death, purpose and meaning, to the one, and, What day is it? to the other. Most religious people's focus, has to do with daily life. Say what you will about how ridiculous some religious priorities sound, but we're also assessing neurotic outcomes.​

And just to bring it around, along the way I eventually pointed back to a prior note↗ about earthsickness:

• If, for instance, frail humanity responds individually and collectively in ways that set ritualistic hooks with affecting superstitious, and thereby neurotic, influence, here we find the earthsick accretions to an otherwise sublimated idea of perfection compared to the frailty we witness, endure, inflict, and fret over.​

Sometimes it feels like I'm repeating myself, but it's uncertain what actually needs repeating, and here we are, again.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Tiassa , hmm that was great !!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Perhaps you could explain what "it" really is for those taken in by presumably misinterpreted signals.

Great way to introduce your bias.

My short hand for suggesting starting at the first page one encounters any print then reading everything on every page until one runs out of print...a difficult concept to grasp but there you have it.

Oh I know to use it one must select a passage, and not be limited by any attempt to actually read page by page or indeed every page, that supports whatever it is one wishes to present with the authority of a soul rattling reference to a book and verse however I find the question I can answer after reading "cover to cover" as to can this book be the word of God, somewhat easier to answer.

One can only guess at the names and indeed the nationalities of the authors..I did see a list of sources only the other day and interestingly "God" did not make the list..but I expect you would know the history and indeed the list.

Do you claim that the bible is "the word of God?".

Interesting claim, unsupported but interesting.

How can we know given there has been no reasonable attempt?
My "standard" sounds rather exclusive...I think my expectations re claims and support for claims is not something limited to me..many folk expect claims to be accompanied by evidence in support although such an approach is indeed apparently unknown in the spiritual realm.

What a cheap miserable shot...

A worthless prize? What would that be ..you know be specific so we can focus on reality and not your determination to treat discussion as an opportunity to play writting. And perhaps explain where you see this "hatred" and give support for your emotional pot stirring.

Of course I do not understand I only read the history outside the bible and place the history of that small part of the world both in a context of a wider time and a wider geographic...how could I understand...
But the op seems rather clear..have you thought to address it..you know look at the flaws rather than attack anyone who dares to point to "the problems" and answer why, fraudsters are given such a free run...all of them..not only the religious ones but across the board...could you address that rather than use this thread as an opportunity to list all that you find annoying about me in your view...even with all my flaws I really do not think I come close to being a fraud or a con man and yet you seem more determined to chip away at my character, knowledge and understanding for some reason...why is that? Why point out all that is wrong with me and ignore what should be areas that will yield more issues than I can present?

So let us take some time to determine why you would use such a phrase...

Why is it childish? And why would you select the word "inquisition"?...Now if you have something to flesh this out please go ahead but really think about your look...you may think you are frightfully clever armed with your thesaurus and notes of neat sayings from great writers you read..but it all falls short with me..I really find it tiresome sorting through some of your nonsense to get the drift but happy to do so when I think I have found some hidden point ...but I always wonder how many points remain hidden in verbosity...still don't indulge your subtle chip chip away at my character or ability or you get it back in bucket loads...now of course you can not justify the use of the words " childish inquisition" no more than you can focus on the op.

Clueless? Why would you say that? You adopt a position where you really do think you know more than anyone don't you? You think your reading has prepared you for the world..yet I suspect real experience is something you have only read about..tell me about your deeds..any sport? Start many businesses? Made and lost any fortunes?Many romances, how about hobbies? Travelled much?..or just stayed indoors and read about how others experience life?

I understand your message..you have delivered it before...

Yes but I do find that atheists know more about religion than theists.
Unfortunately I am one of those types that wants all the detail...so cover to cover..then the history of the world and development of religions, all the invented gods, all the civilizations, all the wars...there is just so much...I don't detail my knowledge to impress folk, in fact would rather folk think I know nothing...as you clearly think of me...it does not matter I don't need to impress I have done more than most experienced more than most and old enough not to need to flex my muscles...but I know the detail...one only has to look at the history to understand the role of religion, to understand it is a human invention, to understand if there is a god what it may be has never been communicated to humans.

Yes of course.
I know two actually..near destroyed by the Catholic Church...
You can't throw off like that...the problem is real and your attempt to trivialize it is pathetic.
Just think about it in depth and make a sensible observation.
You have a particular view that blinkers you to quite a bit..you like your observation re the situation... driven by some experience you have had I gather but please don't let that rule your ability to see more.

Yes for some the definition of truth is not what I hold.

I think truth should be somewhat in line with provable reality...what do we use? What a question..the dictionary? Common usage..local usage...

.....anyways I can not continue ..nice reading your post...you have a wonderful style and I wish I was up to an engagement...nice of you to put out your post to see if I was alive...

Alex

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"When I ask that controversial question regarding what people know about what they discuss and criticize, or that other, apparently confusing one, about why anyone would let people they already know are wrong set the boundaries of discourse, the protests and befuddlement do make a certain amount of practical sense. After all, how much effort and resource should an atheist spend learning which particulars of religion? And, honestly, the answer depends on each atheist, and their decisions about political argument." Tiassa

That should make for a good thread. I suspect most atheists who read the many varied and often contentiously interpreted particulars of the Abrahamic religions would find it difficult to learn anything considering the vast resources spewing forth from a multitude of denominations only to willing to offer their versions as the true word of God.

If only God Himself would come on down and straighten everybody out so we could all be on the same page. Peace would be at hand. Amen to that.

 

The hypocrisy is almost tangible with this one.

 

Never ask a question unless you already have the answer...so what is it? Your answer as I expect you also have a standard if you can find such in others and therefore your answer will be crafted according to your standard I expect.

I see your point but given the deaths and inequities that lay at the feet of religion, in general, and Christians in particular, is it not reasonable to vent somewhat when the hypocracy surrounding the whole deal becomes insufferable?

And of course at the grass root level they are all nice in their opinion of themselves...who isn't? Am I being rude and inappropriate? Well of course..I ask uncomfortable questions...like why should churches not pay tax...who wrote the biblical stories? Is the plot in any way believable?...but of course I don't understand as I won't see what is between the lines or how somehow what we are presented with is a reasonable expectation of what a god should deliver.

I would have thought that the relentless pursuit and outlawing of all that are frauds in the game, or any game, could be something that could take humanity forward and that to attempt to adjust general thinking to only embrace the reality that is provable could be a better approach than entertaining the fairey tales of religion...maybe it's time to adjust things and fit spirituality into what we know...a code of morality does not have to come from a mythical invented god...can we not look to some decent human who is not a god and decide that his or her teachings are decent and could be a neat way to live?

I would be interested to hear the definitions you feel are available...I wonder what the old judge would say when a witness being asked...do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth ( tv version) ...and the witness asks the judge which definition of truth is being asked for.

These would disappear if we did not have religion...replace faith with confidence and mystery with enquiry... faith is not a virtue...

Er yes..the op has that target in sight.

Religions main use is to manage the mob..perhaps find a better way...not easy indeed but a better system may have better education, take out fiction and other mind bending time wasting pursuits so as to condition the mob to actually think and treat education as learning how to develop potential rather than to just instil behaviour patterns and authority recognition....maybe that means back to city warring states but one could think there must be more to humanity than just being able to manage by propping up with ancient superstition. However in the mean time why not jump on the con men and obvious frauds...just doing that could benefit both sides. That's what the thread is about.

It is my belief that the reason folk are confused , for some, for many, is being taught from day one that they are unworthy and failure results in eternal hell at worst or not pleasing a mythical father figure at best. Look at how many folk have difficulty due to the god take on sex...if for no other reason we could throw religion out because of the common harm and confusion from their nonsense that has kids wondering about their "normality" ...it is set up to defy everything that is normal...just the sidelining of woman...I have read convincing articles that attribute domestic violence to a large degree to the stupid notion set out in most religions that a woman must obey the man...anyways off topic.

That's what we do...I absolutely see where you are coming from and at times I could engage at the higher level but sometimes I just become frustrated that humanity could be much better and jump to a conclusion that the BS surrounding religion is the problem...other times I can see the benefit of Christianity in reducing wars in Europe and perhaps driving various decent movements...

I may not be posting in the future ... but that does not mean I don't like the place and all the people here...I will get back to Bells if I can so she realises I am not ignoring her.

Hope to be back at some stage.

Alex

 

Watching the news about France and the nation struggle with terrorist

It appears strange with most businesses the business has to follow a set of restrictions (laws) to operate

Often the business need to supply paperwork to show they understand the laws and how they will operate and stay within the law

Religion seems to be exempt from such requirements

Can a system of registration of religions be set up where the tenets of each religion are subject to scrutiny and any aspect which does not conform to the law of the land be struck out?

I cannot imagine christians putting forward the good book which contains a commandment saying kill your neighbour if he works on Sunday

This is would not be designed to close down the religion, just to point out (should not be needed to be pointed out) the Law says you can't do this

All the junk stuff any church puts forward can sail through unchallenged

Worth thinking about?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Seems we have a knock off of Scientology with Hillsong

http://www.ntnews.com.au/news/national/news-story/7fdd624579db94ca66578046ed8ffe78

Along with unsavoury aspects of Catholic church child abuse

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!