Conversion to religion
Discussion
drainbrain said:
….so basically they all take a rest break and then come swarming back, and in numbers!! Arrgh! It's overwhelming me!! Seriously, I take it you're the house Last Man Standing and it never gets past trying to stave off the onslaught whilst you pick off the occasional one before it bites you and you're obliged to join in
And the odd bod like me drops in and draws them off for a while before I move on and leave you to deal with the relentless onslaught alone…… You could just imagine it transcribed to a TV show, couldn't you?Sorry, mate, but I'm afraid it's time I moved on. Apart from which I actually do have a life beyond the interweb . And more pertinently I'm reminded of the passage which adjures us not to engage in pointless dispute. Which this pretty clearly is. And I've fallen for it like a fool.
Well it really only was an attempt to enlighten. And do you know, I think it's maybe got somewhere. Ok it drew out the usual pus - Bad God - not like Santa at all - doesn't exist- not real like science - and even some of the amusing ones. Most notably, the bloke ( I presume grown up adult) who demands the Noahic questions answered like a 6 year old asking daddy stupid questions, and the one who denies spirituality exists (because it wasn't part of his physics lessons). Honest to goodness. Then you've got the one obsessed with homosexuality and showing God as a homophobe, because the OT has stories of gang rapists (who are also homosexual but probably also like eating chicken) being snuffed. The only really quite sad one is the one who really doesn't want his kids coming in contact with The Sermon on the Mount. Guess his degree didn't include a foray into Moral Philosophy. But for heaven's sake that's like refusing to "expose" your kids to Beethoven because only One Direction is real music and anyway classical music isn't music at all!
Yep, you've a hard road here and possibly a fruitless one. BUT as I said, I've maybe made some headway. Because at least there's an acceptance - albeit borne out of the silence on the matter - that Christ's teachings can't be ascribed to the promotion of homophobia/misogyny/paedophilia/war/anything negative or evil. No-one had much to say on the synopsis of love as the central core christian teaching either. So maybe, just maybe, there's the dawning of the dim understanding of Christ's mission as one of love for mankind and the encouragement of men to love each other.
I'd leave it at maybe, tho. Because there's still demonstrable monster ignorance of the manifold difference between faith esp. Christian faith and organised religion esp. the Christian 'Church". Religion (equated to faith) is still 'to blame' for all the world's evils. Religion/Faith's eradication being seen as a panacea for same. Therefore anyone espousing faith as a positive influence is wrong, period. And anyway it's all imaginary. So whether Christianity has only love to offer the human race or not has no meaning because there is no Jesus, no God, no spirituality and nothing beyond the visible tangible and empirically provable. Plus, of course, any theories which may support the same notion. They are ok. As is "love"- it apparently exists, although not, possibly, in all the forms into which classical Greek separates it.
One thing needs to be said, tho. Whilst there are many capable and interesting 'arguments' and debates over points of Christian teaching, these spring without exception from people with a well grounded understanding of what Christianity really is. That isn't evident here. It really isn't. Even understanding of the superficial facets of scripture aren't much evident. As the serious student is aware, mature scriptural understanding requires the application of a variety of other disciplines - linguistics, semantics,sociology, moral philosophy to name but a few- in order to begin to develop. Here we're at the "why didn't the animals on the ark eat each other" stage. So I'll leave it there and leave you to answer that and other deep spiritual questions from the oncoming relentless horde of attackers…….
God Bless (as we say in the sky fairy dingly dell) . They're all yours again!!
I'm always puzzled by which bits of the holy book should be taken literally and which bits one is apparently being foolish in taking literally.
So stuff that we can all agree on, "thou shalt not steal" is of course to be taken literally. Then you get the stuff where Jesus/God/whoever seems to be acting rather unpleasantly, like when Jesus says he doesn't come in peace but comes with a sword, and I'm told "well don't take it literally, of course he didn't actually have a real sword, you dummy, it's a metaphor for a bunch of flowers and a box of chocolates".
Most Christians would say the story of genesis is not to be taken literally, and of course the earth formed over tens of millions of years, not 6 days. It's a parable, or whatever. Apart from the creationists, who say failure to take it literally means you aren't a true Christian. And you will burn in hell. Hell being real, and not a metaphor. Although many christians think hell is a metaphor, and it isn't a literal lake of fire.
Of course various church leaders have got into real hot water by suggesting that the virgin birth isn't to be taken literally.
I don't know how us atheists are meant to know what is to be taken literally and what isn't, when the believers seem to be at each other's throats over it.
So stuff that we can all agree on, "thou shalt not steal" is of course to be taken literally. Then you get the stuff where Jesus/God/whoever seems to be acting rather unpleasantly, like when Jesus says he doesn't come in peace but comes with a sword, and I'm told "well don't take it literally, of course he didn't actually have a real sword, you dummy, it's a metaphor for a bunch of flowers and a box of chocolates".
Most Christians would say the story of genesis is not to be taken literally, and of course the earth formed over tens of millions of years, not 6 days. It's a parable, or whatever. Apart from the creationists, who say failure to take it literally means you aren't a true Christian. And you will burn in hell. Hell being real, and not a metaphor. Although many christians think hell is a metaphor, and it isn't a literal lake of fire.
Of course various church leaders have got into real hot water by suggesting that the virgin birth isn't to be taken literally.
I don't know how us atheists are meant to know what is to be taken literally and what isn't, when the believers seem to be at each other's throats over it.
drainbrain said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
….so basically they all take a rest break and then come swarming back, and in numbers!! Arrgh! It's overwhelming me!! Seriously, I take it you're the house Last Man Standing and it never gets past trying to stave off the onslaught whilst you pick off the occasional one before it bites you and you're obliged to join in
And the odd bod like me drops in and draws them off for a while before I move on and leave you to deal with the relentless onslaught alone…… You could just imagine it transcribed to a TV show, couldn't you?Sorry, mate, but I'm afraid it's time I moved on. Apart from which I actually do have a life beyond the interweb . And more pertinently I'm reminded of the passage which adjures us not to engage in pointless dispute. Which this pretty clearly is. And I've fallen for it like a fool.
Well it really only was an attempt to enlighten. And do you know, I think it's maybe got somewhere. Ok it drew out the usual pus - Bad God - not like Santa at all - doesn't exist- not real like science - and even some of the amusing ones. Most notably, the bloke ( I presume grown up adult) who demands the Noahic questions answered like a 6 year old asking daddy stupid questions, and the one who denies spirituality exists (because it wasn't part of his physics lessons). Honest to goodness. Then you've got the one obsessed with homosexuality and showing God as a homophobe, because the OT has stories of gang rapists (who are also homosexual but probably also like eating chicken) being snuffed. The only really quite sad one is the one who really doesn't want his kids coming in contact with The Sermon on the Mount. Guess his degree didn't include a foray into Moral Philosophy. But for heaven's sake that's like refusing to "expose" your kids to Beethoven because only One Direction is real music and anyway classical music isn't music at all!
Yep, you've a hard road here and possibly a fruitless one. BUT as I said, I've maybe made some headway. Because at least there's an acceptance - albeit borne out of the silence on the matter - that Christ's teachings can't be ascribed to the promotion of homophobia/misogyny/paedophilia/war/anything negative or evil. No-one had much to say on the synopsis of love as the central core christian teaching either. So maybe, just maybe, there's the dawning of the dim understanding of Christ's mission as one of love for mankind and the encouragement of men to love each other.
I'd leave it at maybe, tho. Because there's still demonstrable monster ignorance of the manifold difference between faith esp. Christian faith and organised religion esp. the Christian 'Church". Religion (equated to faith) is still 'to blame' for all the world's evils. Religion/Faith's eradication being seen as a panacea for same. Therefore anyone espousing faith as a positive influence is wrong, period. And anyway it's all imaginary. So whether Christianity has only love to offer the human race or not has no meaning because there is no Jesus, no God, no spirituality and nothing beyond the visible tangible and empirically provable. Plus, of course, any theories which may support the same notion. They are ok. As is "love"- it apparently exists, although not, possibly, in all the forms into which classical Greek separates it.
One thing needs to be said, tho. Whilst there are many capable and interesting 'arguments' and debates over points of Christian teaching, these spring without exception from people with a well grounded understanding of what Christianity really is. That isn't evident here. It really isn't. Even understanding of the superficial facets of scripture aren't much evident. As the serious student is aware, mature scriptural understanding requires the application of a variety of other disciplines - linguistics, semantics,sociology, moral philosophy to name but a few- in order to begin to develop. Here we're at the "why didn't the animals on the ark eat each other" stage. So I'll leave it there and leave you to answer that and other deep spiritual questions from the oncoming relentless horde of attackers…….
God Bless (as we say in the sky fairy dingly dell) . They're all yours again!!
Edited by drainbrain on Saturday 30th July 15:17
///ajd said:
He started in a friendly enough way but is now just telling us how much smarter he is than anyone else who are all kids/idiots/haven't read much properly.l
I like the way you have to the read the blatent homophobia is a special way with special langages skills blah blah blah to see its not really homophobic.
The story of sodom is very clealy homophobic
Jesus refers specifically the the story of sodom - forging a clear link between Jesus & the OT & its homophobia
The church until recently has been very OK peddling homophobia
Keep pretending it ain't so if it makes you feel better. Don't expect many to believe you though, its all in the scriptures - they aren't hard to read in the way obviously intended.
He appears to have exited the thread. If I was an atheist I'd be upset as I think the he is likely to push a considerable number of believers in gods towards a lack of belief. I like the way you have to the read the blatent homophobia is a special way with special langages skills blah blah blah to see its not really homophobic.
The story of sodom is very clealy homophobic
Jesus refers specifically the the story of sodom - forging a clear link between Jesus & the OT & its homophobia
The church until recently has been very OK peddling homophobia
Keep pretending it ain't so if it makes you feel better. Don't expect many to believe you though, its all in the scriptures - they aren't hard to read in the way obviously intended.
Edited by ///ajd on Saturday 30th July 15:41
Well I'm an Atheist and I'm upset because its fun listening to religious types making it up on-the-fly when asked a serious question.
You'll rarely hear 2 interpretations of a contentious passage in bible that are the same. It makes me wonder how they ever reconcile with each other behind closed doors when trying to agree on doctrine.
I always return to Hitch when I think of 'God'. If there is such a creature why, when say a school full of children is burning, does he not act? He either can't act or he won't act. If it's the former then he's an impotent God and is not as portrayed by the church and the bible or, if its the later, then he's an evil creature not worthy of our consideration.
You'll rarely hear 2 interpretations of a contentious passage in bible that are the same. It makes me wonder how they ever reconcile with each other behind closed doors when trying to agree on doctrine.
I always return to Hitch when I think of 'God'. If there is such a creature why, when say a school full of children is burning, does he not act? He either can't act or he won't act. If it's the former then he's an impotent God and is not as portrayed by the church and the bible or, if its the later, then he's an evil creature not worthy of our consideration.
gadgetmac said:
I always return to Hitch when I think of 'God'. If there is such a creature why, when say a school full of children is burning, does he not act?
Epicurus 341-270 BCE said:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
I was a great fan of Christopher's, but he would never have claimed authorship of that one, he was an honest and moral man.Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
gadgetmac said:
I always return to Hitch when I think of 'God'. If there is such a creature why, when say a school full of children is burning, does he not act? He either can't act or he won't act. If it's the former then he's an impotent God and is not as portrayed by the church and the bible or, if its the later, then he's an evil creature not worthy of our consideration.
God works in mysterious ways. That seems to be the standard get out clause when the evidence points to him being either non existent or a nasty piece of work.My big question for god is that if he exists, why does he allow so many
s into his fan club?gadgetmac said:
Well I'm an Atheist and I'm upset because its fun listening to religious types making it up on-the-fly when asked a serious question.
You'll rarely hear 2 interpretations of a contentious passage in bible that are the same. It makes me wonder how they ever reconcile with each other behind closed doors when trying to agree on doctrine.
I always return to Hitch when I think of 'God'. If there is such a creature why, when say a school full of children is burning, does he not act? He either can't act or he won't act. If it's the former then he's an impotent God and is not as portrayed by the church and the bible or, if its the later, then he's an evil creature not worthy of our consideration.
I think that with the burning school example it is traditional to trot out the "works in mysterious ways" get out of jail card.You'll rarely hear 2 interpretations of a contentious passage in bible that are the same. It makes me wonder how they ever reconcile with each other behind closed doors when trying to agree on doctrine.
I always return to Hitch when I think of 'God'. If there is such a creature why, when say a school full of children is burning, does he not act? He either can't act or he won't act. If it's the former then he's an impotent God and is not as portrayed by the church and the bible or, if its the later, then he's an evil creature not worthy of our consideration.
Isn't it interesting to see how open and friendly DrainBrain was when he came on here, and how condescending he turned above, pouring scorn on all non-believers.
Still it was educational to read about Sodom and Judges 19 again. Quite remarkable stuff when you think about what the author is trying to influence the reader to think. Truely dark ages stuff.
///ajd said:
Still it was educational to read about Sodom and Judges 19 again. Quite remarkable stuff when you think about what the author is trying to influence the reader to think. Truely dark ages stuff.
Have a quick look at Ezekiel 23: 19-20. Honestly, how people allow the bible in their homes when children are around is beyond my comprehension. TwigtheWonderkid said:
///ajd said:
Still it was educational to read about Sodom and Judges 19 again. Quite remarkable stuff when you think about what the author is trying to influence the reader to think. Truely dark ages stuff.
Have a quick look at Ezekiel 23: 19-20. Honestly, how people allow the bible in their homes when children are around is beyond my comprehension. If anyone else is antisocial enough to have spent their Friday evening listening to Radio 4 there was a fascinating talk by David Graeber in which, among other things, he noted that most of the major religions sprang up shortly after the introduction of currency as the primary medium of exchange and store of value. Previously economic transactions had been personal in nature and ongoing in nature rather than 'spot' trades completed in one transaction. I.e. a man gives a cow to his neighbour for a wedding reception, the neighbour now owes him the equivalent of a cow for a wedding reception.
The introduction of an actual unit of account for these exchanges gave money a life of its own, and meant empires could expand far beyond the reach of a chain of command with a personal loyalty to one rulers. This gave rise to a search for an impersonal driving force behind the vagaries of the rise and fall of empires and the economic wellbeing of their inhabitants.
If you were all out enjoying yourselves but find this sort of stuff interesting look out for the podcast.
Graeber is an anticapitalist so miles away from my ideals, but his analysis and his communication of it is brilliant IMO. His books are well worth a read too.
The introduction of an actual unit of account for these exchanges gave money a life of its own, and meant empires could expand far beyond the reach of a chain of command with a personal loyalty to one rulers. This gave rise to a search for an impersonal driving force behind the vagaries of the rise and fall of empires and the economic wellbeing of their inhabitants.
If you were all out enjoying yourselves but find this sort of stuff interesting look out for the podcast.
Graeber is an anticapitalist so miles away from my ideals, but his analysis and his communication of it is brilliant IMO. His books are well worth a read too.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff