Religion, State, and the New Christian Spirit

[Tiassa]

Metatron Johnson

The thing is—

Members of House Republican leadership expressed frustration at Speaker Mike Johnson after a GOP leadership retreat over the weekend, organized to outline plans for keeping the majority, quickly turned into a religious service.

"I'm not at church," an anonymous attendee said in response to Johnson leading the group in prayers and Christian sermonizing. According to two people in the room the sermon was not well received, with one Rep. calling the session "horrible."

Johnson was reportedly railing against government, saying that without God in their lives people will turn to the government for guidance. The sermon lasted for a full third of the meeting according to the anonymous members.

(Matthews↱)​

—the House GOP is already extraordinarily stressed.

That's what's going on; it's not that Speaker Johnson just got too churchy for the party of Christian conservatism, but, rather, it's not working out.

The government continues to operate; House Republicans, despite their lamentations in recent weeks, still have nothing to show their voters; their reasons for not legislating have grown from self-denigration to flaming catastrophe. This isn't a suicide mission to accomplish a task regardless of the cost, but, rather, a slowburning masochism keeps erupting into searing hellflame.

For instance, not only has their hunt for Hunter been shown to be fraudulent to the point that their key witness is claiming to be a Russian disinformation agent, but consider that Special Counsel David Weiss, given the job because he is a Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney, apparently cannot tell the difference between sawdust and cocaine.

The question of when who knew what↗ presses more heavily as Rep. Comer's (R-KY01) Oversight investigation now appears to be based on foreign disinformation. For the House Republicans who spoke out about their party's congressional failure, the prospect that they did it all as tools of a foreign government stings all the more.

Speaker Johnson (R-LA04) is, moreover, graceless and incompetent about it all. And that's what is going on. Conservatives have been running increasingly risky political schemes in recent years, trading out actual substantial work for spectacle and melodrama. And for all these Republicans have hurt themselves in exchange for some grand victory even they could never describe, the Speaker's embarrassing mix of failure and unconvincing clodhoppery not only wastes the effort, but lays bare the bad faith that will haunt all their names.

Meanwhile, the economy is getting better, Trump is getting worse, and not only do Republicans not have anything to show their voters, their own demands have brought about a result in which their reason for making sure government doesn't work turns out to look like poodling for a foreign adversary. Speaker Johnson's tenure is a disaster only mitigated by the Republican desire for dysfunction, i.e., making sure that government just doesn't work. It isn't much for solace.

Speaker Johnson doesn't have anything to offer, so of course he falls back to preaching and prayer; some House Republicans who are weary of the stooge they made Speaker will take the occasion to mark the divisions. It's almost like a corporate recall calculation: Will it hurt the party more to leave Johnson in place or overturn the Speakership again?

Even that is a complex question, though, because this isn't really how things are supposed to go. Conservatives had to work hard to so badly screw up screwing things up so badly.

In that context, then, remember that the problem isn't the Christian nationalism. "I'm not at church," said the one, and maybe the GOP leadership retreat was "horrible", but House Republicans will do their partisan duty and vote for the agenda whenever they have a chance. Any grumbling, at this point, has to do with how poorly Speaker Johnson does his part.

That is to say, not only do they get nothing out of it, the Speaker is so clumsy about it all as to increase the damage Republicans take in a devilish coin toss by which they are either sinister or retarded. And, yes, they really did do this to themselves.

And with the Alabama Supreme Court having just inflicted another Christian nationalist blow, I can only reiterate↗ that general denunciations of religion, Christianity, and scripture will not be sufficient for the task.
____________________

Notes:

Matthews, Troy. "Republicans Furious as Speaker Johnson Turns GOP Leadership Meeting Into Religious Revival". Meidas Touch Network. 21 February 2024. MeidasTouch.com. 22 February 2024. https://bit.ly/3TaB3Ux

Spoiler

 

[Tiassa]

What, Did You Miss It?

Because never knows best.​

Sometimes it's simply important to remind, this does not happen without voters; it does not arise ex nihilo, nor emanate from mystery.

During a recent interview on the program of self-proclaimed "prophet" and QAnon conspiracy theorist Johnny Enlow, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Tom Parker indicated that he is a proponent of the "Seven Mountain Mandate," a theological approach that calls on Christians to impose fundamentalist values on all aspects of American life.

Enlow is a pro-Trump "prophet" and leading proponent of the "Seven Mountain Mandate," a "quasi-biblical blueprint for theocracy" that asserts that Christians must impose fundamentalist values on American society by conquering the "seven mountains" of cultural influence in U.S. life: government, education, media, religion, family, business, and entertainment.

Enlow has also repeatedly pushed the QAnon conspiracy theory, sometimes even connecting it to the Seven Mountain Mandate. Per Right Wing Watch, Enlow has claimed that world leaders are "satanic" pedophiles who "steal blood" and "do sacrifices" and that "there is presently no real democracy on the planet" because over 90 percent of world leaders are involved in pedophilia and are being blackmailed.

On February 16, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are people, with the same rights as living children, and that a person can be held liable for destroying them, imperiling in vitro fertilization treatment in the state. In a concurring opinion, Parker quoted the Bible, suggested that Alabama had adopted a "theologically based view of the sanctity of life," and said that "human life cannot be wrongfully destroyed without incurring the wrath of a holy God."​

It's one thing if Alabama voters can elect a truly broken government, but we can think of the Q-Anon, Seven Mountain, conspiracist Christian nationalist Chief Justice as sort of the follow-up. Remember, these voters have been electing judges like Roy Moore and Tom Parker for a while. This Christian supremacism doesn't happen by accident.
____________________

Notes:

Armstrong, Payton. "Alabama Supreme Court chief justice spreads Christian nationalist rhetoric on QAnon conspiracy theorist's show". Media Matters for America. 21 February 2024. MediaMatters.org. 22 February 2024. https://bit.ly/3uFBInr

Spoiler

 

[ThazzarBaal]

Metatron Johnson

The thing is—

Members of House Republican leadership expressed frustration at Speaker Mike Johnson after a GOP leadership retreat over the weekend, organized to outline plans for keeping the majority, quickly turned into a religious service.

"I'm not at church," an anonymous attendee said in response to Johnson leading the group in prayers and Christian sermonizing. According to two people in the room the sermon was not well received, with one Rep. calling the session "horrible."

Johnson was reportedly railing against government, saying that without God in their lives people will turn to the government for guidance. The sermon lasted for a full third of the meeting according to the anonymous members.

(Matthews↱)​

—the House GOP is already extraordinarily stressed.

That's what's going on; it's not that Speaker Johnson just got too churchy for the party of Christian conservatism, but, rather, it's not working out.

The government continues to operate; House Republicans, despite their lamentations in recent weeks, still have nothing to show their voters; their reasons for not legislating have grown from self-denigration to flaming catastrophe. This isn't a suicide mission to accomplish a task regardless of the cost, but, rather, a slowburning masochism keeps erupting into searing hellflame.

For instance, not only has their hunt for Hunter been shown to be fraudulent to the point that their key witness is claiming to be a Russian disinformation agent, but consider that Special Counsel David Weiss, given the job because he is a Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney, apparently cannot tell the difference between sawdust and cocaine.

The question of when who knew what↗ presses more heavily as Rep. Comer's (R-KY01) Oversight investigation now appears to be based on foreign disinformation. For the House Republicans who spoke out about their party's congressional failure, the prospect that they did it all as tools of a foreign government stings all the more.

Speaker Johnson (R-LA04) is, moreover, graceless and incompetent about it all. And that's what is going on. Conservatives have been running increasingly risky political schemes in recent years, trading out actual substantial work for spectacle and melodrama. And for all these Republicans have hurt themselves in exchange for some grand victory even they could never describe, the Speaker's embarrassing mix of failure and unconvincing clodhoppery not only wastes the effort, but lays bare the bad faith that will haunt all their names.

Meanwhile, the economy is getting better, Trump is getting worse, and not only do Republicans not have anything to show their voters, their own demands have brought about a result in which their reason for making sure government doesn't work turns out to look like poodling for a foreign adversary. Speaker Johnson's tenure is a disaster only mitigated by the Republican desire for dysfunction, i.e., making sure that government just doesn't work. It isn't much for solace.

Speaker Johnson doesn't have anything to offer, so of course he falls back to preaching and prayer; some House Republicans who are weary of the stooge they made Speaker will take the occasion to mark the divisions. It's almost like a corporate recall calculation: Will it hurt the party more to leave Johnson in place or overturn the Speakership again?

Even that is a complex question, though, because this isn't really how things are supposed to go. Conservatives had to work hard to so badly screw up screwing things up so badly.

In that context, then, remember that the problem isn't the Christian nationalism. "I'm not at church," said the one, and maybe the GOP leadership retreat was "horrible", but House Republicans will do their partisan duty and vote for the agenda whenever they have a chance. Any grumbling, at this point, has to do with how poorly Speaker Johnson does his part.

That is to say, not only do they get nothing out of it, the Speaker is so clumsy about it all as to increase the damage Republicans take in a devilish coin toss by which they are either sinister or retarded. And, yes, they really did do this to themselves.

And with the Alabama Supreme Court having just inflicted another Christian nationalist blow, I can only reiterate↗ that general denunciations of religion, Christianity, and scripture will not be sufficient for the task.
____________________

Notes:

Matthews, Troy. "Republicans Furious as Speaker Johnson Turns GOP Leadership Meeting Into Religious Revival". Meidas Touch Network. 21 February 2024. MeidasTouch.com. 22 February 2024. https://bit.ly/3TaB3Ux

Spoiler

I've always enjoyed a good word salad. I can't say I agree, but I enjoyed the colorful presentation. "Slow burning" and "searing hell flame" Ha ...

 

[ThazzarBaal]

Who truly wants Christian Nationalists holding the reigns? Don't mistake my intent. I'm both a Christian and a Republican. I'm not anti blue or a die hard red state voter, but I am an American, red, white, and blue. Colors don't matter much to a few of us anymore. Red, blue, white, black, yellow ... Who cares? Really, who cares? I like private sector involvement, but isn't this where Christian Nationalists have the most influence? It's a little scary sometimes. I could go with a more socialist flow of things, but I can't nor can I support leaving it up entirely to Christian Nationalists. We definitely don't need more sermons. We need true leaders and civic duty becoming second nature for us as Americans.

The pounce potential in the political arena seem never ending. Everyone is fair game. So, who cares? Americans? Democrats, Republicans, Christian Nationalists? Well, we have brothers, sisters, mom's, pops, and all our families going through it together. Who's the pie holder? Who's piece in the balance? Where's the pie coming from, and how much do we truly need? Isn't it our civic duty to get involved? Yeah, but who's ready for that? It's fair game mentality out here and the pies too small. Not to mention the list of stipulations too long to read sometimes attached to the pie holders.

So, Mr Johnson seemed to have given a sermon? I wonder why? Who was he speaking to and what would it have benefitted him? I haven't been watching the circus shows lately.

Pie ... Does it matter? Where it comes from I mean.

 

[Tiassa]

So, Mr Johnson seemed to have given a sermon? I wonder why? Who was he speaking to and what would it have benefitted him? I haven't been watching the circus shows lately.

Well, just for instance, in a week when Christian nationalism actually went so far as to put even Beltway Republicans on their heels, and House Republicans imploded into infamy including the appearance of foreign influence, sure, of course you missed it, and of course the bottom-shelf Speaker of the House can't think of anything better than evangelizing to the point that even his fellow evangelicals are annoyed.

There is a larger context but it's a little more complicated than razzing on religious people for believing in God, so we need to take that part slowly and delicately, so as not to alarm such sensitive critics.

 

[ThazzarBaal]

Well, just for instance, in a week when Christian nationalism actually went so far as to put even Beltway Republicans on their heels, and House Republicans imploded into infamy including the appearance of foreign influence, sure, of course you missed it, and of course the bottom-shelf Speaker of the House can't think of anything better than evangelizing to the point that even his fellow evangelicals are annoyed.

There is a larger context but it's a little more complicated than razzing on religious people for believing in God, so we need to take that part slowly and delicately, so as not to alarm such sensitive critics.

A nice theology degree, coupled with sociology, psychology, and civic degrees would benefit our future leaders. I would think the connection ability would be an important element for our representatives. We live in a religious world and this nation is represented by more than I can count on 2 hands. It would likely pay off for future politicians.

 

[James R]

A nice theology degree, coupled with sociology, psychology, and civic degrees would benefit our future leaders.

No science? Not even law? (Or are you counting that in civics?)

 

[ThazzarBaal]

No science? Not even law? (Or are you counting that in civics?)

For the political arena, particularly when addressing many types of people, the listed academics would seem most beneficial. Science and law are a prequisite of sorts for any type of successful campaign or term. Typically, I would suggest these positions (law and science) are held by those on the larger team, who chose these as their academics. All are beneficial, no doubt.

 

[James R]

You're talking about the United States here, right? The United States that has separation of church and state as a constitutional bedrock principle?

What use is theology in governing a nation in which state is separate from church?

 

[ThazzarBaal]

You're talking about the United States here, right? The United States that has separation of church and state as a constitutional bedrock principle?


What use is theology in governing a nation in which state is separate from church?

It's the inclusion I'm alluding to and not leaving any citizen out of the talking points.

 

[Tiassa]

Pseudoscience for Christ

For anyone who pays attention, the only real surprise how often it is even dumber than we would have imagined.

Kelly Johnson, the wife of the newly elected House speaker, ran a Christian counseling service that is affiliated with an organization that advocates against abortion and homosexuality and whose practices are built on the teachings of the Greek physician Hippocrates.

Kelly Johnson's website listed a specialty in Temperament counseling, a specialty that she received training for from an organization founded in the 1980s by a Christian couple. According to the materials the organization provides, the National Christian Counselor's Association is adamant that its offerings take place outside of more traditional state-licensed settings so that counselors and clients can be fully engaged through their faith.

"The state licensed professional counselor in certain states is forbidden to pray, read or refer to the Holy Scriptures, counsel against things such as homosexuality, abortion, etc," a catalog of the organization's offerings states. "Initiating such counsel could be considered unethical by the state."

The temperament-based approach breaks people down into five types: Melancholy, Choleric, Sanguine, Supine, and Phlegmatic. Richard and Phyllis Arno, who established a test to identify people's temperament, founded the National Christian Counselors Association in the early 1980s. They and their advocates prefer the term temperament over personalities as the term personality is characterized as a "mask" while temperaments are "inborn" and thus inherent to each individual regardless of outside influences such as parenting. Their work is largely based on Hippocrates' view that there were four temperaments.

(Griffiths↱)​

The would-be Hippocratic revival reaches back further, through Tim LaHaye¹, the anti-gay, anti-Catholic, antisemitic preacher with longtime political connections including the Bush and Huckabee dynasties, and a large audience for his series of apocalyptic novels.

And, as you would imagine, the "therapy" is intended to convert people to Christianity:

One post for an affiliated counselor on the organization's website describes a deliverance ministry in addition to temperament testing. Using this approach to drive demons out of a client makes sure the person is "better able to receive and act upon godly counsel, including recommendations from the APS profiles." (APS profiles are the abbreviation for the couple's temperament testing system.)​

It nearly sounds like Christian-Hippocratic Scientology. How strange if that should be rude to Scientologists.
____________________

Notes:

¹ Here's a line on LaHaye and politics↑: "It's one thing, for instance if Salem Media Group opened shop in 1974, but ... well, right. They're owned by Regnery, now, the publisher who made a lot of money feeding conspiracism to conservatives." And the note on that is that Regnery's founders are connected to the Reagan-era Council for National Policy, which in turn included LaHaye among its founders.​

Griffiths, Brent. D. "Kelly Johnson, who is married to House Speaker Mike Johnson, practices a form of Christian counseling that classifies people into 'choleric', 'phlegmatic,' and other ancient personality types purportedly ordained by God". Business Insider. 30 October 2023. BusinessInsider.com. 29 February 2024. https://bit.ly/3QG5nUD

 

[LaurieAG]

Leviticus 25:44-46 says:

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves.

You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property.

You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
​

The bible explicitly endorses slavery. Jesus said nothing to negate Leviticus.

Leviticus had 'an eye for an eye' and Jesus did negate it. Exodus had the bit about releasing your slaves/servants (same thing) if you maimed them.

KJB Matthew 5: (38) Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: (39) But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

I thought Christians followed the new testament and not the old where Leviticus and Exodus are? I know some of the puritans in Cromwell's army that invaded Ireland followed the old testament. A book was written about the siege (and massacre) of Drogheda and an English officer who ordered that Irish children be used as shields to counter the Irish pikes was apparently murdered by his own men after. It's unusual that mainstream Christians would follow this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Drogheda

The old testament of the bible also endorsed genocide in taking the 'promised land'. From the KJB loosely, surround their cities with your armies and ask them to open their doors in 'peace', if they do not do so then attack them and 'kill everything alive that breatheth'. That's why they had to wander in the wilderness for 40 years, so all those responsible could die before they returned. BTW, you'll have to read the KJB yourself to see this as it seems very sanitised on the web today.

 

[Tiassa]

In the order. Personal experience, the bible and I believe the difference between good and evil are embedded on my conscience(How did they get there?).

I have a question: What does this have to do with the thread subject of religion, state, and Christianity?

I mean, y'know, as compared to yet another typal back and forth between "atheism" and "religion".

Is it that you have a stake in distracting discussion of theocracy?

Or is it just that such discussions are beyond you, and this is what you know how to do?

 

[davewhite04]

I have a question: What does this have to do with the thread subject of religion, state, and Christianity?

I mean, y'know, as compared to yet another typal back and forth between "atheism" and "religion".

Is it that you have a stake in distracting discussion of theocracy?

Or is it just that such discussions are beyond you, and this is what you know how to do?

Is this the first time a thread has went off topic? What makes this one special?

I'm answering a question. I don't expect you to understand what a straight answer is.

Now Tiassa, have you got anything of substance to add to your own thread?

 

[davewhite04]

X × X

​

Two quick-takes on Speaker Mike Johnson. First, the Speaker himself:

"I'm not trying to establish Christianity as the national religion, or something, that's not what this is about, at all. If you truly believe in the Bible's commands, and you seek to follow those, it is impossible to be a hateful person, because the greatest command in the Bible is that you love God with everything you have, and you love your neighbor as yourself."

(qtd in. Acyn↱)​

And then there is John Pavlovitz↱, a former youth pastor fired for not being conservative enough in his ministry:

Mike Johnson is not a follower of Jesus. He’s a phobic bigot using religion to justify things antithetical to Jesus’ teaching.​

It's a pretty straightforward contrast, and in its way, left as it is, both can be true.

Still, there is what history tells, and the future to come. Some part of the assessment ought to be easy.

If speaker M Johnson is a Christian, then it's more than likely that he is a hypocrite.

But as usual your OP is vague.

Did these men know each other personally? If so, how am I supposed to know? Am I missing something?

I have met one lovely Christian in my life. A Catholic lady Mary Short, she matched the speakers theory perfectly.

If JP got sacked by MJ or someone MJ was associated with, maybe he's just a bitter hypocrite.

Either way it's just handbags by JP.

Matthew 7:4-5

4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

 

[Tiassa]

Is this the first time a thread has went off topic? What makes this one special?

Well, that's the thing: It's just like any other thread when atheists and religious believers just have the same argument they always have, regardless of the subject.

I already asked an atheist; he just got upset and issued an infraction↗.

So I thought I'd ask one of religious evangelists, and apparently the best he can come up with—

Now Tiassa, have you got anything of substance to add to your own thread?

—is to ask if I'm capable of posting on-topic. Since the answer to that is, demonstrably, yes, we can just turn it back to you, now.

This, at least, pretends to be substantial:

Either way it's just handbags by JP.

Matthew 7:4-5

4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Still, as long as we have the moment: What is this phenomenon of ignorance and incuriosity? It's one thing if the dynamics of American political institutions are obscure and confusing to some of our international neighbors, but that's not really the problem in this thread.

Consider that you are in a very typical discussion with an atheist, and despite his years of experience as an atheist critic of religion, it's the same sort of thing we could have found, here, a quarter-century ago. It's like some people haven't leaarned a thing, over the period, which would make sense if that was never their point. And while some might complain about unsupported beliefs having detrimental impacts on other people, the best the discussion can manage is schoolyarding.

And the Christians in these discussions, well, there's always a reason they're uninformed or unaware, but it just isn't surprising, anymore, when they somehow end up supporting sin.

But if the topic post is vague, it's because the thread covers a lot. This isn't just about the Speaker's weirdo cult. Thus, if you actually pay attention, you'll find that even when addressing irrelevant balbutive, I do try to↑ turn↑ the discussion↑ back toward↑ the topic. As I said↑: There is a larger context but it's a little more complicated than razzing on religious people for believing in God.

Imagine a kid with a terrible report card, who got in a fight a couple days ago, and just came home reeking of vodka and cigarettes, and in the moment all the parents can do is fight about credit cards, accuse each other of having affairs, and call each other hypocrites and bad people. While it's true, there is no reliable instruction manual for parenthood, we can also wonder if they've learned nothing over the period.

Consider, please↑: "Is that something Jesus said?" It's at least twenty years later, and apparently he still doesn't know.

Flip-side: Even observing that the discussion will go where it will, your citation of John 8.1-11, in #43↑, lacks any explanation of how that story addresses Matthew 5.17-18.

Inasmuch as you were answering a question:

I'm answering a question. I don't expect you to understand what a straight answer is.

Should I not expect you to understand basic context? A straight answer, maybe, but are you too naïve to recognize a crooked, twisted, or bent question? And that straight answer↑, as such, is more of a dismissal than anything else: "You're talking about ancient history," you said, and that's it. Frankly, it's not much of an answer. "Ancient history"? So, what? But, then, the challenge of trying to explain what that answer means is kind of tricky, so I can see why you wouldn't want to try.

In truth, my objection is simply at the fact that, once again, at the intersection of unsupported beliefs and detrimental impacts, we are supposed to turn away. The religious folks, sure, I can see why. But the part where the atheistic argument is to look away from the danger does, over the course of years, start to stand out.

Try it this way, please:

• At the intersection of unsupported (i.e., religious) beliefs and the harm they cause, you might find me disputing with the religious because those beliefs insist on causing harm to others. Others, though, turn away from the harm in order to complain against the prospect of justifying harmful outcomes according to God. At that point, it can be difficult to discern whether or not they object to the harm. In some cases, people aren't even thinking it through in their own beliefs. After all, how does that harm come to be? And that answer is, at some level, basic: Through laws and other societal instruments; we sometimes describe these as politics. And if we compare one's argument against religion to their political outlook vis à vis this intersection of religious belief and harm, sometimes things don't add up.​

In the end, the difference can easily become a matter of context in which our expectation probably isn't appropriate. Inasmuch the actual, real sum of an argument does something else, entirely, we might wonder what that is.

And maybe that all seems like a few more words than necessary, but: The objection to "God" as a basis for moral, political, or other affecting assertion, undertaken on the grounds that its fundamental justification is irrational, is not an argument against irrational fundamental justifications, but, rather, a particular variation thereof.

(Where would we be if I had just left it all at that? For instance, if you're answering a question, I might look beyond my suggestion that it wasn't much of an answer in order to wonder at your take on the pabulum questions.)

If, once upon a time, and all that, but it's more than the moment requires. Whether here at Sciforusm, or out in the world where religious beliefs inflict tremendous harm, it's this many years later, and people are still having pretty much the same discussion, which in turn has yet to do any good.

 

[davewhite04]

Well, that's the thing: It's just like any other thread when atheists and religious believers just have the same argument they always have, regardless of the subject.

I already asked an atheist; he just got upset and issued an infraction↗.

So I thought I'd ask one of religious evangelists, and apparently the best he can come up with—



—is to ask if I'm capable of posting on-topic. Since the answer to that is, demonstrably, yes, we can just turn it back to you, now.

You are wrong again. James R and I have never gone to the depths we are discussing currently, it's not "just another..." it's unique because it has never happened before. You kicking up a fuss about it being off topic helps no one, it's rare that we get anything of substance these days in this sub forum... however I'm glad you're around to keep things alive.

You've got me all wrong Tiassa.

I'll reply to your bulk post soon.

 

[davewhite04]

Still, as long as we have the moment: What is this phenomenon of ignorance and incuriosity? It's one thing if the dynamics of American political institutions are obscure and confusing to some of our international neighbors, but that's not really the problem in this thread.

I think my reply just about nailed your OP despite it being vague, but it has triggered a substantial reply. Are you American? I'm from England and ignore the news and politics as much as possible, it can be a trigger for depression. It slowly eats away at your positive energy until before you know it you're left with negative energy. My advice, ignore news and politics whenever possible.

Consider that you are in a very typical discussion with an atheist, and despite his years of experience as an atheist critic of religion, it's the same sort of thing we could have found, here, a quarter-century ago. It's like some people haven't learned a thing, over the period, which would make sense if that was never their point. And while some might complain about unsupported beliefs having detrimental impacts on other people, the best the discussion can manage is schoolyarding.

Different people or different ideas can result in different outcomes. We must pursue the truth, no matter how ignorant your opponent is, maybe if the debaters don't learn anything, someone reading this now or in ten years might get something helpful from it. It's the whole point, otherwise we might as well stop discussing, which would help nobody.

Agreed.

And the Christians in these discussions, well, there's always a reason they're uninformed or unaware, but it just isn't surprising, anymore, when they somehow end up supporting sin.

What do you mean supporting sin?

But if the topic post is vague, it's because the thread covers a lot. This isn't just about the Speaker's weirdo cult. Thus, if you actually pay attention, you'll find that even when addressing irrelevant balbutive, I do try to↑ turn↑ the discussion↑ back toward↑ the topic. As I said↑: There is a larger context but it's a little more complicated than razzing on religious people for believing in God.

When I said vague I meant the context, the problem or point of discussion seemed dead straight forward to me.

Imagine a kid with a terrible report card, who got in a fight a couple days ago, and just came home reeking of vodka and cigarettes, and in the moment all the parents can do is fight about credit cards, accuse each other of having affairs, and call each other hypocrites and bad people. While it's true, there is no reliable instruction manual for parenthood, we can also wonder if they've learned nothing over the period.

In most cases the number one priority would be the kid, maybe it's different in the USA. These situations existed well before credit cars, adults(or so called adults) fight like children and in a bad house hold the kid is always the one that suffers.

Consider, please↑: "Is that something Jesus said?" It's at least twenty years later, and apparently he still doesn't know.

Flip-side: Even observing that the discussion will go where it will, your citation of John 8.1-11, in #43↑, lacks any explanation of how that story addresses Matthew 5.17-18.

Inasmuch as you were answering a question:

I think people are busy and they forget, not everyone has your memory Tiassa. Don't make an issue out of it.

My bad regarding the stoning situation. Noted.

Should I not expect you to understand basic context? A straight answer, maybe, but are you too naïve to recognize a crooked, twisted, or bent question? And that straight answer↑, as such, is more of a dismissal than anything else: "You're talking about ancient history," you said, and that's it. Frankly, it's not much of an answer. "Ancient history"? So, what? But, then, the challenge of trying to explain what that answer means is kind of tricky, so I can see why you wouldn't want to try.

The old testament laws are ancient history. No Jew or Christians stone people to death now, both religions have evolved. Maybe you're getting mixed up with Islam. There's nothing wrong with short answers, as long as the person reading it understands it, either automatically or by doing a tad bit of research. To me a two word answer can be substantial. And I have answered the "tricky" one line statement, which caused a lengthy organic debate.

In truth, my objection is simply at the fact that, once again, at the intersection of unsupported beliefs and detrimental impacts, we are supposed to turn away. The religious folks, sure, I can see why. But the part where the atheistic argument is to look away from the danger does, over the course of years, start to stand out.

Try it this way, please:

• At the intersection of unsupported (i.e., religious) beliefs and the harm they cause, you might find me disputing with the religious because those beliefs insist on causing harm to others. Others, though, turn away from the harm in order to complain against the prospect of justifying harmful outcomes according to God. At that point, it can be difficult to discern whether or not they object to the harm. In some cases, people aren't even thinking it through in their own beliefs. After all, how does that harm come to be? And that answer is, at some level, basic: Through laws and other societal instruments; we sometimes describe these as politics. And if we compare one's argument against religion to their political outlook vis à vis this intersection of religious belief and harm, sometimes things don't add up.​

I disagree. Religious beliefs can be supported using history and holy books for example. What example have you got of a religious belief in the Christian church.

Not all Christians a made from the same cloth... most are sheep and take no notice of the bible, maybe read exerts now and then, but there are prayer warriors too.

In the end, the difference can easily become a matter of context in which our expectation probably isn't appropriate. Inasmuch the actual, real sum of an argument does something else, entirely, we might wonder what that is.

Entertainment.

And maybe that all seems like a few more words than necessary, but: The objection to "God" as a basis for moral, political, or other affecting assertion, undertaken on the grounds that its fundamental justification is irrational, is not an argument against irrational fundamental justifications, but, rather, a particular variation thereof.

(Where would we be if I had just left it all at that? For instance, if you're answering a question, I might look beyond my suggestion that it wasn't much of an answer in order to wonder at your take on the pabulum questions.)

If, once upon a time, and all that, but it's more than the moment requires. Whether here at Sciforusm, or out in the world where religious beliefs inflict tremendous harm, it's this many years later, and people are still having pretty much the same discussion, which in turn has yet to do any good.

I admit, I'm not cut from the same cloth as you Tiassa, my answers are short generally but straight to the point. It's good haven't people like you around ready to punce on any suspect bullshit.

People talking is always a good thing, once it stops we're in trouble.

I love you Tiassa but you remind me of coders who write overly complex code, say 1000 lines, and it's my job to reduce it to 300 so the package is easier to support in the future. Why do they write 1000 lines? To show off? Or are they naturally overly complex individuals? Either way I call them shit programmers.

If I've misunderstood something please point it out and perhaps word it differently, maybe it is a anglo-american thing(if you are American)

 

[ThazzarBaal]

Turbulent ethers flowing from the well
of grey matter attached to the bedrock of soul, initiated per ego and point. Finite waves of thought drift through the tubules like sand in a hour glass to one day lay at rest on earthen shores of matter. From grey to brown to be plucked back up from the shoreline for the eternal flow of the ethers bound.

 

[davewhite04]

That doesn't seem to stop the evangelical types from quoting them.

Sometimes, but evangelicals tend to stick to Jesus in the NT. Would you agree?