NASHVILLE STATEMENT - A Coalition for Biblical Sexuality
“Know that the LORD Himself is God;
It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves…”
-Psalm 100:3
Preamble
Evangelical Christians at the dawn of the twenty-first century find themselves living in a period of historic transition. As Western culture has become increasingly post-Christian, it has embarked upon a massive revision of what it means to be a human being. By and large the spirit of our age no longer discerns or delights in the beauty of God’s design for human life. Many deny that God created human beings for his glory, and that his good purposes for us include our personal and physical design as male and female. It is common to think that human identity as male and female is not part of God’s beautiful plan, but is, rather, an expression of an individual’s autonomous preferences. The pathway to full and lasting joy through God’s good design for his creatures is thus replaced by the path of shortsighted alternatives that, sooner or later, ruin human life and dishonor God.
This secular spirit of our age presents a great challenge to the Christian church. Will the church of the Lord Jesus Christ lose her biblical conviction, clarity, and courage, and blend into the spirit of the age? Or will she hold fast to the word of life, draw courage from Jesus, and unashamedly proclaim his way as the way of life? Will she maintain her clear, counter-cultural witness to a world that seems bent on ruin?
We are persuaded that faithfulness in our generation means declaring once again the true story of the world and of our place in it—particularly as male and female. Christian Scripture teaches that there is but one God who alone is Creator and Lord of all. To him alone, every person owes gladhearted thanksgiving, heart-felt praise, and total allegiance. This is the path not only of glorifying
God, but of knowing ourselves. To forget our Creator is to forget who we are, for he made us for himself. And we cannot know ourselves truly without truly knowing him who made us. We did not make ourselves. We are not our own. Our true identity, as male and female persons, is given by God. It is not only foolish, but hopeless, to try to make ourselves what God did not create us
to be.
We believe that God’s design for his creation and his way of salvation serve to bring him the greatest glory and bring us the greatest good. God’s good plan provides us with the greatest freedom. Jesus said he came that we might have life and have it in overflowing measure. He is for us and not against us. Therefore, in the hope of serving Christ’s church and witnessing publicly to the good purposes of God for human sexuality revealed in Christian Scripture, we offer the following affirmations and denials. Stray words.
Reference: https://cbmw.org/nashville-statement
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
108 visitors
Article 1
WE AFFIRM that God has designed marriage to be a covenantal, sexual, procreative, lifelong union of one man and one woman, as husband and wife, and is meant to signify the covenant love between Christ and his bride the church.
WE DENY that God has designed marriage to be a homosexual, polygamous, or polyamorous relationship. We also deny that marriage is a mere human contract rather than a covenant made before God.
Article 2
WE AFFIRM that God’s revealed will for all people is chastity outside of marriage and fidelity within marriage.
WE DENY that any affections, desires, or commitments ever justify sexual intercourse before or outside marriage; nor do they justify any form of sexual immorality.
Article 3
WE AFFIRM that God created Adam and Eve, the first human beings, in his own image, equal before God as persons, and distinct as male and female.
WE DENY that the divinely ordained differences between male and female render them unequal
in dignity or worth.
Article 4
WE AFFIRM that divinely ordained differences between male and female reflect God’s original creation design and are meant for human good and human flourishing.
WE DENY that such differences are a result of the Fall or are a tragedy to be overcome.
Article 5
WE AFFIRM that the differences between male and female reproductive structures are integral to God’s design for self-conception as male or female.
WE DENY that physical anomalies or psychological conditions nullify the God-appointed link
between biological sex and self-conception as male or female.
Article 6
WE AFFIRM that those born with a physical disorder of sex development are created in the image of God and have dignity and worth equal to all other image-bearers. They are acknowledged by our Lord Jesus in his words about “eunuchs who were born that way from their mother's womb.” With all others they are welcome as faithful followers of Jesus Christ and should embrace their biological sex insofar as it may be known.
WE DENY that ambiguities related to a person’s biological sex render one incapable of living a
fruitful life in joyful obedience to Christ.
Article 7
WE AFFIRM that self-conception as male or female should be defined by God’s holy purposes in creation and redemption as revealed in Scripture.
WE DENY that adopting a homosexual or transgender self-conception is consistent with God’s
holy purposes in creation and redemption.
Reference:
Article 8
WE AFFIRM that people who experience sexual attraction for the same sex may live a rich and fruitful life pleasing to God through faith in Jesus Christ, as they, like all Christians, walk in purity of life.
WE DENY that sexual attraction for the same sex is part of the natural goodness of God’s original creation, or that it puts a person outside the hope of the gospel.
Article 9
WE AFFIRM that sin distorts sexual desires by directing them away from the marriage covenant and toward sexual immorality— a distortion that includes both heterosexual and homosexual immorality.
WE DENY that an enduring pattern of desire for sexual immorality justifies sexually immoral behavior.
Article 10
WE AFFIRM that it is sinful to approve of homosexual immorality or transgenderism and that such approval constitutes an essential departure from Christian faithfulness and witness. WE DENY that the approval of homosexual immorality or transgenderism is a matter of moral indifference about which otherwise faithful Christians should agree to disagree.
Article 11
WE AFFIRM our duty to speak the truth in love at all times, including when we speak to or about one another as male or female.
WE DENY any obligation to speak in such ways that dishonor God’s design of his imagebearers as male and female.
Article 12
WE AFFIRM that the grace of God in Christ gives both merciful pardon and transforming power, and that this pardon and power enable a follower of Jesus to put to death sinful desires and to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord.
WE DENY that the grace of God in Christ is insufficient to forgive all sexual sins and to give power for holiness to every believer who feels drawn into sexual sin.
Article 13
WE AFFIRM that the grace of God in Christ enables sinners to forsake transgender self-conceptions and by divine forbearance to accept the God-ordained link between one’s biological sex and one’s self-conception as male or female.
WE DENY that the grace of God in Christ sanctions self-conceptions that are at odds with God’s revealed will.
Article 14
WE AFFIRM that Christ Jesus has come into the world to save sinners and that through Christ’s death and resurrection forgiveness of sins and eternal life are available to every person who repents of sin and trusts in Christ alone as Savior, Lord, and supreme treasure.
WE DENY that the Lord’s arm is too short to save or that any sinner is beyond his reach.
References:
Here's a good alternative to the hateful ideology of the "Nashville statement".......a new website which rates churches on the clarity of their policies about LGBT folks. Many churches try to hide that they preach hate or reject LGBT folks, but perhaps a majority are LGBT-friendly today. Note that this isn't the only web-based rating service available.
.
And speaking of haters, this was a pretty reprehensible action on the part of a Catholic bishop near where I live. This guy is rather notorious for his homophobia and transphobia.
So above his the entirety of the problem. The dilemma. That which disturbs. This is what "they" are up to next. . . .
It is outrageous. When someone tells you time and time again who they really are—believe them.
Above you will find the "Preamble" to the Nashville Statement. Immediately following it I have provided the "Articles."
This is rendered in August 2017 by the CBMW.org, A Coalition for Biblical Sexuality. Catchy title.
Read all about: Our dilemma. That which disturbs. What comes "Next." The Outrage.
When someone tells you time and time again who they really are—believe them. Much to say and I honestly am having a hard time with which "end" to begin on.
I can see why this bothers you but I wouldn't expect anything else from these anti-LGBT loons. They have a need to justify their hate.
One can make more friends with honey than with vinegar, the saying goes!
A heterosexual religion? What is biblical manhood and womanhood all about?
Sounds like a lot of bible thumping mumbo jumbo (I like to call it bible humping). I didn't know there was anything damning homosexuals in the bible? When god supposedly condemned Sodom and Gomorrha - it wasn't for homosexuality - it was for not being good hosts.
I understand what you mean about the lack of hospitality in Sodom. In the Book of Ezekiel, right?
But it does bring to question as to why "God" would condemn his own creation? That is assuming that "God" is the creator.
He doesn't damn his own creations - if God even exists.
Nah, he smites them! Although, god was never really careful about whom got caught in his retributive blast radius.
“We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” --- Gene Roddenberry
You are definitely off-topic. This article deals with the efforts and strategies of RW evangelicals to affect the lives of homosexuals and transgendered citizens. Will it have a 'real-world' (policy) impact, in your opinion. Any discussion along these lines would be helpful, in my opinion.
You're correct. If you believe the borrowed stories, he slaughtered it.
If logic is applied the whole "God" story falls apart.
An all-knowing, all-powerful God tends to see end results from the beginning, in my opinion. Perhaps a better pondering could be where do humans fit in the development or blending process heading toward a final conclusion.
More to the article's point of view, Gordy, I have a more expansive question for you. When Jesus opened up his ministry to include "the nations" or Gentiles, was he expecting a spiritual following to flow outward or a political machine to eventually break forth?
Have you asked the Jewish people if any of their past history is borrowed? I have not. Have you?
“If one takes notions of God seriously, by definition God is a being that transcends the senses. So if one limits one’s potential belief to what one can experience with the five senses, then it is very difficult to imagine how one could appropriate a God given those limitations.” —Terrence Reynolds, professor and chairman of the Department of Theology at Georgetown University
Our entire faith was co-opted, and our God stolen. After that, Christians created a new God to their own liking and claimed that he really is our God. And then persecuted Jews for a thousand years for killing their stolen God. Sorry, but some Jews feel this way, and I don't blame them.
No reason to apologize. It is how some Jews feel. I can not speak to it, but I can accept this. To be clear and speaking for myself, I think all people of goodwill are remarkable.
Looking back at Jeremy's message, in context of borrowing, I do not think he meant done by Christianity. The Christian faith readily explains how its root is Judaism. I think he meant the whole or part of Judaism and by extension Christianity are "borrowed" from other external sources.
Efforts which must be combated, especially if they wish to apply them to anyone else outside their own circle.
I hope not. If they want to keep it within their religious circle, that is their prerogative. But when they attempt to push it onto others, or especially into the law or government, then there is a problem!
Indeed it does. But then, some theists have a "logic" all their own.
That negates the possibility of any "free will."
In what regard?
That's a matter of conjecture, one which people will probably choose one or the other. Over the course of history, both have probably occurred.
AGREED! Emphatically.
At this point, I want to share with you this awesome counterpoint delivered by a conservative pastor about this Nashviille Statement :
One more set of points to your post: RW evangelicals really need to ratchet down their political treatment on this (and some other) issue and give other communities in our constitutional/capitalist society a chance to thrive and live less molested.
It's nice to see there is a pastor who actually gets it. Unfortunately, he is probably the exception rather than the rule.
As you said previously: "AGREED! Emphatically."
A "live and let live" approach might benefit everyone involved.
You, we, that is, have limited freewill and even so it is construct. Oh, and you had more of it ("FREE WILL") before Donald J. Trump, President. But, I digress. As to kings, every type of king I have ever learned about had/has followers. Therefore, free-will is limited (or illusion, if you prefer).
God has set the parameters of our choices in a world mankind labeled, "Earth." A name construction. In human terms, we could be a project, a science "experiment" extant in a dish among dishes. Think of it this way, instead of mankind and creatures living ontop the Earth's crust, we had a relatively sufficient live in the Earth's mantle. Mantle consistency aside, just how much exploration of the crust and the universe beyond this planet would we know in a period of time? My point is we know a lot about this world and the universe relative to what? Just how "faulty" is humanity compared to other unknown and highly probable life?
I contend Jesus was opening up for a spiritual following where people using their individual moral free-will flow in at some point into a faith relationship. However, power, influence, and capital flow from human endeavors and are hard to denied.
By that standard, "god" could be nothing more than highly more advanced intelligent alien life. Think Star trek. That certainly seems more plausible than a supernatural deity.
Relative to what we knew before. Our knowledge and understanding grows as time goes on and we continue to explore and learn. Of course, there is still a looooong way to go.
If I had to guess, I'd say quite faulty. Fortunately, if we have one redeeming quality, it's our desire to improve ourselves, even if very, very slowly.
No, like myself, he is coming to grips with an understanding that you can not compel others, fellow citizens, to want something so drastic as the life a conservative wants for him or —self! The door has to remain ajar so people may come as they are.
One of the most spiritual of concepts comes from a 'farming' metaphor in the natural :
Spiritually, this means years spent in other life endeavors do not matter. Age does not matter. Life can reset itself if and when an individual makes a choice to do so. Moreover, the reset will be tangibly felt.
Therefore, for their part, RW evangelicals should permit other people copious space to experience life. It won't harm them to do this.
You may be concerned about my use of biblical passages. I do so because it is a portion of my frame of reference. As much as any other parts of my life. That's all. Feel free to chunk it, if it offends you.
"Think Star Trek." Gordy, by that standard, we could think —God. And, to whom (first homo-sapiens?) has man become "god-like" already? I'd agree on the last. Mankind is fond of its slow social climb.
Man has only become (arguably) more intelligent. Certainly nothing "god-like."
At least it's ascending and not descending on that climb. Perhaps mankind would benefit from a social elevator?
HA!
I don't think he really does since he says he agrees with the articles of the statement. He only disagrees with the tone and that only as a tactical matter.
In other words he wants more honey in the Christian anti-LGBT hate message.
Quick thought: That pastor is saying that you have to give people space to work out the issues of their life! In this sense, God is not in a rush. The biblical prodigal son comes to mind: He went out into the world into riotous living and then after he "came to his senses" he turned to his Father. Finding his father waiting with joy and outstretched arms. Thus the pastor, in totality of the linked article on his counter remarks, suggesting that another dry treatise can do more harm in the short term. Because such a document exposes the negative intent and lack of growth in understanding on the part of the signees.
I have to question, is the Lord you speak of the same as the Lord of the Jews. If so, then why were almost all the founders of Judaism polygamists? Also, if God creates us all, (which I do not believe), why would he create homosexuals, just to torture them? Basically, I see this document making a lot of assumptions about what God feels, with questionable evidence.
Free will ... he helps those who helps themselves ... works in mysterious ways ... I imagine the divine answer lies somewhere in that nonsense.
Why do you call it nonsense? Please elaborate.
Because they are all tools of ambiguity that allow desired conclusions to fit desired narratives.
Well Hal, spirituality is a discipline. You have to devote study to it in order to derive any significant meaning.
You could say the same thing about any work of fiction.
Ask Israel how much of its storied history is fiction, Hal.
Is that supposed to be an excuse for their behavior and illogical beliefs?
Well, is Ancient Israel real or fiction? Don't get ahead of this, please.
Israel is a relatively recent nation-state. Palestine has obviously been there for millennium. The claims of the Bible aren't fact, despite what member of religion wants to believe.
The political State of Israel is recent, but the fact is that Jews have been living there for thousands of years.
Much of what we read in the Bible is probably fiction.
The Exodus likely didn't happen, for example. And we know that the Genesis myth is a myth. Same with the Ark myth. And the Jonah myth.
How much has to be myth before we can assign the Bible to the fiction section? Historical fiction that is much more fact-based than the Bible is still considered to be fiction.
I'd like to read or 'hear' from Israelis about their ancient past. Anybody got any comments and resources?
What is your point? That's like saying the adventures of Huck Finn are real because they took place in a real country. Yeah, Israel is a real place - whoop de doo.
So have people of many other religions.
Exactly correct.
Why does their version of the myth get preferential treatment from you?
In defense of calbab, all countries histories have myths and legends. Israel, having such a long history, many things have been lost or made up. That said, is doesn't impact the Bible. Religions aren't supposed to be histories, they are stories used to enlighten people to moral questions. As for Israel at the present, again, history does not matter. In 1948 they fought for and won a battle for control of the area, no different then any other country. That doesn't mean that Israel has not made mistakes, again, like all countries. It also doesn't make the Palestinians angels, they have made plenty of their own mistakes.
Tone aside, you agree Ancient Israel is a real place. No myth there. No then: What qualifies you to tell Israelis their written history is myth? Point me to the source/s of your 'Israelite perspective.'
IMPASSE.
Yes. You can see it in the United States today! Everybody is writing, and sharing, and boasting, and in many cases exploiting the record with disinformation, misinformation, and out-right lying. Moreover, the parties require a 'witness' to verify everything they put to paper and 'voice.' Just imagine what President Donald J. Trump's official library records will amount to with all the obfuscations, double-speak, accusations, cross-talk, and interlaced conspiracy theories housed together!
Bottomline: It is clear to me, as it likely should be clear to many others, that there were many voices in Ancient Israel over its recorded history. A cacophony of voices. Somebody, anybody, scribes, stepped forward and dedicated themselves to an official duty of stewardship of documents and such as it has been explained to us.
So we have the record. It has been set in stone in significant fashion. For us what is left is an acceptance or a rejection of the documents and records. We do not get to take out a BIG FAT critique pen and "go crazy" on the writings of ancient people using our own near-modern, modern, and post-modern interpretations and mores. Higher criticism of the Bible, in the wrong hands, is a negative tool of aggression and molestation. Such activities are angry, political, and belligerent.
Like the Bereans, a real group of people, people possessing a spiritual nature can sit down and draw meaning the documents included in the Bible, Old and New Testaments inclusive.
Did I say something wrong?
In the very first paragraph of the preamble it makes the assumption that the only pathway to happiness is through THEIR religion, and that anyone not following their religion "ruins" their lives. If that's not nonsense I don't know what is. I've met hundreds of very happy and vibrant gays, atheists, Buddhists, Hindu's and Muslims not following the prescribed Christian pathway and I've met hundreds of miserable Christians who have. I think on the face of it the premise is proven false.
They continually "Affirm" divine rules for everything but have yet to prove anything divine, supernatural or factual.
They claim it's their "duty" to speak truth but cannot back up their words with anything other than an ancient document that was decided by a group of fallible humans rounded up by an unbaptized Roman emperor who presided over choosing what would and would not become bible cannon. If you want to claim "truth" try embracing something that can be tested and proven by scientific means. Prove anything spiritual, supernatural or divine and then you can claim to be arbiters of truth and claim your path to happiness is really the best.
It is my understanding that after IMPASSE is stated that the person who said it and their recipient have to let this point drop - period.
From what I am seeing, it is used when one person does not want to reply. I don't know if that is the purpose, but at this point there will be no reply to you about this matter.
I on the other hand could possibly reopen the point without being in violation of the COC. However, I believe that it will just be the same result.
There will most likely be other conversations along these same lines in the future. Maybe, we will gain more understanding then.
Sounds like a cop-out to me. Or an admission of defeat. Either way, it is quite convenient.
Gordy, it is part of this site's COC.
If I understand how the COC is created, there were enough members needed a "safe word" that it was voted on and approved to be included in the COC.
What qualifies you to tell Israelis their written history is myth?
What a strange question. When did I ever express a desire to preach to Israelis?
It is supposed to prevent heated debates from devolving into slap-fights, but it can also unfortunately be a cop-out.
I understand it's part of the CoC and why it was created. But that doesn't change my opinion of it and how it can be "misused."
It is a cop-out because my reply was not a slap fight. I asked a reasonable question and Calbab now wants to shut down the conversation because he doesn't like where this line of questioning is going.
He would rather be intellectually dishonest than permit me to possibly butcher his sacred cow with my questions.
I agree completely, but per site rules, any further discussion of the topic on this thread is subject to moderation. I'm not crazy about it, either, but I think most people know when the impasse rule is being used to shut down debate vs. being used to prevent slapfights.
Very true Sandy.
In most cases, it does function to stop fights that have gone round circle over and over with only bad feelings happening. You are also right, that when it is called all discussion about the topic and the impasses stops. I acknowledge it can be abused to avoid, but today alone more than 5 of them were called, and they did stop what would have been dumb fights and unnecessary violations.
What dumb fight or unnecessary violation did it stop in this instance?
The rule like any other rule will have it's exception to the rule. This might be one of them, but for the most part, it serves the greater good.
What if any are the repercussions, if a person uses that rule to serve a purpose that isn't the greater good?
Is there room to modify the impasse rule - to make repeated abuse of the impasse rule a violation in itself?
Morning Perrie (Saturday)! With a "gang-bang" situation staring me down, I chose as a last resort to deploy the IMPASSE rule accordingly. It was either that, lock or delete the thread, or just walk away. For I do not have any appetite to simply bloat the thread with worthless 'filler' rhetoric. It seems I left this new thing , a subset discussion about the IMPASSE rule occurring, to wake up to a new post (2 hours ago at the time of this posting) about the IMPASSE rule. It is clear to me that somebody/ies do not wish to honor the rule as a rule.
Now, I courteously ask that these participants take their personal confusion about NT IMPASSE rule away from this discussion. Perhaps visit:
Certainly, I welcome my fellow participants to discuss a wide array of topic-related subject matter when abiding by the well-stated rules of NT.
Oh, and a most "delicious" Star Trek movie to punctuate your point, indeed!
What gang bang situation were you facing? Who was going to be part of this gang bang?
Having your statements questioned by multiple people is what a discussion is. it most certainly isn't a gang bang.
Hi Rhyferys! First, I have to clarify this article is not something I support. I provide it only to witness that a group of (RW) evangelicals are "at it again" to stir a settled pot. I reckon this will energize the signees (participants) to this statement with renewed focus to suppress homosexuals and transgenderism. Clearly, it is their hope the Trump Administration (specifically AG Sessions) and the republican Congress will see their dedication to putting forth a new "solid" initiative.
Like the conservative pastor in #4, I take the position that this is meddlesome, aggressiveness on behalf of a select group of the "usual suspects." However as the saying goes: "This is what they do next."
>>
As to the question of polygamy, and homosexual creation, those are two different venues of thought. My quick answer would be that there are many social constructs that run afoul of inclusion in societies at various points in world history. Other than this, your questions could take off in many directions of theology or secular explanations.
Hi calbab- Thank you for your thoughtful answer. I'm very glad that you clarified your position, I am new here and haven't seen enough of your posts to judge. I was raised Jewish and became an atheist later on. I am always fascinated by the many Christian sects and their many interpretations of the same books.
There may be some very "exciting" answers you can enlighten this group about in regards to a Jewish point of view. With respect to your current Atheism status, you may remember the depths of knowledge and understanding you plumbed in your past systems.
For instance, what is the sum total of the Jewish teaching on the issues of Sodom and Gomorrah? If you have a resource I would love to research it as well. My personal reason for asking this question (and others like it) is because modern Israel is split on the nature of homosexuality in society. I would like to go to the 'source' of the Orthodox Jewish view. Incidentally, if I state any term or phrase inappropriately or improperly towards Judaism or the Jewish people going forward, forgive my ineptness. I mean no offense to your former state.
Christians, we, are a "spirited" bunch aren't we. Our zeal can deliver to life-changing growth, development, and stability and conversely for many send them off on a zealous Odyssey into and across the world with varied results!
I was not raised Orthodox, although my father's family was. On Sodom & Gomorrah, I was taught the same as Tessylo, it was treating strangers badly, not homosexuality. In all Middle Eastern cultures, treating strangers with courtesy is essential, you would offer a guest food even if you didn't have enough for your own family. What a lot of people don't know, or conveniently forget, is that Lot offered up his own daughters for the mob to rape if they would leave his guests alone. That is some serious courtesy.
Thank you for such clarity. Now please be patient with me a little longer on this, as I solemnly value your consideration: Did you ever hear "in circles" hintings about Homosexuality in Sodom? Gomorrah? Any idea mentioned around you how modern interpretation understood it this way?
Note: Yet again, this may be a more appropriate set of questions for my friend, Enoch. I wonder if he is nearby. . . .
The Jews have a very specific set of laws, over 600, of which the 10 commandments are only the first. I can recall nothing about homosexuality, nor was it spoken of in synagogue or school. It may have been the times (the 60's), but it was not considered a problem. Most mentions in the bible was more about prostitution, both hetero & homo, mainly because certain pagans had sacred prostitutes, and that would be idolatry, something the Jewish god was more concerned about. I guess no one likes competition.
This must be the article you are referring to (Article 1). Clearly init you can see the Evangelicals trying to establish a permanent manifesto.
Yes, they make many assumptions of what God wants. I don't think that is a good idea.
Not to mention, why would a supposedly omnipotent, all-powerful god care one iota about some mere mortals sex lives? Talk about hang-ups.
And why would an all-powerful creator of everything care if a mere human believes it exists or not? Why does this creator need humans to constantly praise and honor it, does 'God' have low self-esteem or something? The way Christians portray god as this angry, petty, vindictive being, is the ultimate blasphemy.
Co-dependency issues and narcissism.
And their god seems to hate the same people they do too. How convenient.
You may be begging the question You would have to study the discipline to comprehend such matters better. I wonder, do you?
If you do not study the subject you can not know. It would be so much better if you could tell us something about humanism. I presume you, an Atheist, study this subject.
Besides this article is about (RW) evangelical writing a manifesto, more than anything else. In my opinion, that is.
What makes you assume I am not familiar with the subject?
What would you like to know? In a nutshell, humanism puts the importance and needs of humans first over any deity. It's generally non-theistic in its philosophy.
I've read the bible cover to cover, does that count? It is the bible itself, more than everything else put together, that convinces me it is not the word of an all powerful, all knowing god, even if such a being does exist.
The whole "doubting Thomas" façade. Maybe, you confuse me.
Tell us a story, please. Do humanists hold meetings, seminars, charity events? Do you have favorite humanists websites, and Youtube subscription channels? Are you a Bright? What are the names of some humanists writers? Are you interested in Transhumanism? What is humanist activism? BRAG a little. I hear so little positive from your side.
None that I've been invited to. But there are humanist groups.
No & no.
I wish.
Richard Dawkins, Roger Ebert, Christopher Hitchens, Carl Sagan, Seth MacFarlane, Dr. Benjamin Spock, Steve Wozniak....
It's a fascinating topic.
Here's one :
I don't brag.
Perhaps they don't brag about it. Do you hear any negative ?
I always found it to be brilliant planning that the predominant god of the place of anyone's birth is always the one true god.
Kinda non-descript comment, lennylynx.
You know full well that many atheists used to be Christians. Many of us have studied the Bible every bit as much as you have, and found it lacking. Considering your apparent support for the LGBTQ community, when the Bible states homosexuality is an abomination, you apparently find it lacking, too.
Provocative.
There are a great many things I know about this world, a great many things I agree with about this world, a great many things I disagree with about this world, and a great many things that confuse me about this world. Sandy, How about you?
I can understand why heterosexuals want to gather together in their own collectives. Also, I can understand why LGBTQ people want to exercise their sexual freedoms as well. Furthermore, I can understand the well-worn paths cut between the two 'halfs.'
My interest in the Bible at any point I read is to understand (as best I can) what its people were thinking, feeling, and doing during the times they lived. Real people with real experiences. And, some of the nuances of that society. As I read and study it, I smile, laugh, grimace, cry, and am downright horrified by the actions of those people and their posterity! But as all of the Bible is history, I do not walk around in a constant state of rage at a collection of dead people. That would be unhealthy and possibly even stressful. And, in today's world we know stress kills.
As a believer, how can I rage against my Creator? Moving on.
The believer who is LGBTQ has to find his or her own role in the Christian walk of Faith. And like nearly every other complexity in life you work at it to understand and to do. I do not have this luxury to stand outside of my spiritual self any longer. I have gotten on with the work of defining my role in it.
How about all of the people outside the Christian faith? Why should any of them even want to know the Christian religion's rules or tenets any more than they would want to know the rules/tenets of how to properly worship Zeus?
There is no need for anyone outside of the Christian faith to know the tenets of the faith. You will get no argument from me on that account! That said, in this country, people exchange nearly everything that makes up life constantly. The trouble forms when one side or the other seeks total domination. I have not in the past and do not in the present feel that total domination is a "go to" state for any group in our country.
There should be no level of domination. Complete separation.
There should be no ten commandments on public property.
This push for public prayer at secular events needs to be completely stopped.
The push for creationism to be taught in public schools needs to be completely stopped.
The push for public businesses to have religious rights - needs to be completely stopped.
If the Jesus lovers want to spend 24/7 saying "I love you, Jesus" to themselves, then no one is stopping them. It is when they demand that the everyone listens on public property at secular events that it becomes clear that their mindset is not about them personally loving their Jesus.
The people of this nation can not completely separate from each other. We are simply too integrated a people for that to occur. For instance, the "Bible Belt" will likely always send someone of religious convictions to local, state, and federal offices.
The ten-commandments display on public property is not necessary.
Official acts of public prayer should be context-sensitive.
Creationism is not science.
Public businesses should have limited personal use of religious rights as well as equal public accommodation rights.
Some of these I have not thought about ever. Some have extraordinary "moments" which must be considered. In those cases, I choose not to make a definitive statement here.
So women should have to wear a head covering to obey the owner's religious dress codes?
And then, why not made women cover then entire faces so as not to incite sin in men?
No. Once it begins, it will not stop. But there is no reason to allow it period. This is the United States, not the United Arab Emirates no matter how many Christians try to make our country a theology that is under the rule of their chosen sect. There is no one true Christian religion. There are sects of the Christian religion that denounce the other sects as cults. History is filled with Christian sects warring with the others to be in control of as many people as possible. Religion is about control of others.
Have you noticed that most of these religions are anti-women rights? According to the Abrahamic religion, we are a man's property, slave and broodmare with some sects being more adamant about this than others.
The Catholic church is a prime example of mistreatment of women. Nuns are relegated to a life of poverty and servitude.
My grandmother's church (the Church of Christ) would not allow women to speak in church. On spiritual manners / interpretation of the Bible, the women were to ask their husbands. If a woman did not have a husband, the instruction was to ask another woman to ask her husband for the answer. Then the wife would relay the guidance.
There are very few Christian sects that allow women a position of authority.
There is absolutely no place for such treatment of women anywhere in our society or government.
I won't dignify the scarf remark, except to point out I never wrote about that or implied which, if any, teaching should be involved with public accommodation.
Religion is an outgrowth of faith. What people do with religion makes it a blessing or a curse. Not all religious sects create problems, or tears in the social fabric. Condemning all world religions, or more narrowly the Abrahamic religions, may give its critics a feeling of being defiant. But, it also denies millions of people not involved in the political and social melees freedom of spiritual expression. That is yet a another different form of oppression caused by the Secular side. You really must condense your outrage.
Trying to end all world religions will be tantamount to trying to blow out the sun, in my opinion. That said, I am fully aware that Richard Dawson and many humanist writers are hot on the trek in the sun's direction.
Does this question have a point?
Is there scripture that speaks ill of homosexuality, or not? I'm fairly sure that there is, and I'm fairly sure, given what you've said in the past, that you disagree with it. YOU disagree with the scriptures of a religion that YOU follow. Obviously, so do I, as do other nonbelievers. But for us, it's because we haven't studied, or are incapable of understanding. Does the same reason apply to you, when you disagree with your scriptures?
Does our condemnation of your religion prevent your practice of it?
No, I must really not condense my outrage.
This is the only life that I will ever have. I have wasted much of it being controlled and/or condemned by members of the Christian cult. This is unacceptable on any level that a child is fed myth as truth.
Women remain in abusive marriages because of the rules of Christianity.
Women don't achieve their potential in life when they are being controlled by Christian rules to be a subservient broodmare to men instead of the CEO of an international corporation or even POTUS.
How many religions have come and gone in mankind's history?
Someday, the Christian religion will most likely join them. Hopefully, something much nicer and more inclusive will take its place.
Oh, stop railing. The world's systems are what they are. All any of us can do is work within them to make them better or to get along. Spread a little sunshine in your comments, please. We all "got issues," aches, and gripes but I try not to over-expound on mine.
Abusive marriages in Christian and other religious homes? Yes, I hear about that. More so before the Domestic Violence Act passage than today. However, the Church, the world, has issues. Moreover, Christianity never told a husband to "man-handle" his woman or vice-versa. People laxed in understanding or diabolical in nature despite their faith declaration did/do those things.
Lastly, the Church could have done and now do better to tell the "offending spouse" to be a better mate on a regular speaking routine! Just something as simple and yet firm as those words could have mitigated a lot of ill-will.
So I hear you loud and clear. But, the Faith is not going away. We can try to do our best to pick it up, dust it off, and wipe away some of the "stupe" (judgemental nature) inside it in the process!
I did. I cited the article about the world's happiest countries are the least religious.
Since "none" is among the fastest growing religions in the US, I believe our future is looking much brighter as Christians and their control of our society is lessened.
Teaching children or anyone that there is a supernatural being keeping score in order to torment them for eternity is barbaric. Add in the FACT that it is based on MYTH, then it is beyond barbaric.
Then let's add in all kinds of Heinz 57 apologies for that "loving" supernatural being allowing women and children to be tortured, raped, bombed, abused and killed because it works in "mysterious" ways that we can't understand because we aren't "spiritual" enough.
Talk about spreading sunshine.....
It's lessening, especially among the Millennials and hopefully with each generation from now on.
Why would anyone want to waste their lives worshipping a being that does not exist?
Why would anyone want them to?
The US is the largest industrialized nation that has a religion problem. We are also the most violent industrialized nation.
How is guilting people about being "sinners" sane?
Let me be blunt. Not agreeing with everything in scripture is nothing new. Further up the thread, Rhyferys and I briefly addressed this subject of homosexuality and temple prostitution in relation to Sodom. So there is a standing question that will not be adjudicated in the biblical books, because the books are sealed. So what do the churches do in response to the problem and the closure: 1. Work-arounds. 2. Practical Christianity. 3. Teach the subject as condemnation. So take your pick.
I sure did. But my solution is not up for debate or 'charging' by somebody who needs a soundbite or thunderbolt to hurl in the moment. Frankly, it is my life, my choice, my faith, and ultimately, my end. What I never did as an agnostic, or will not do as a believer is run amok denouncing God or bygone biblical writers about any portion of the inspired words I put my trust in.
Reflection: It may be an interesting question to ask why so many in the LGBTQ community wish to be involved in the Christian faith in one way or another. The reason is spiritual and not nature.
I am done repeating myself. You can continue being belligerent without me as a foil. Thank you, mccowgirl and "company." Now good day.
Probably because they were raised in that cult despite how harmful it has proven to be to LGBT folks.
If you are talking about Abraham Joseph and Isaac, they were not Jews. The were monotheistic men. The Jewish faith as we know it today, only happened after Moses gave the hebrews the 10 commandments and the Torah.
Jews, even orthodox Jews are very clear on this. Gays are not to be tortured by their fellow man. From the Chabad which is an ultra orthodox movement:
As much as we know about human sexuality, we don't yet know enough. We're all, as individuals and as a society, still learning. In the last half century, we've come a long way in our understanding of human sexuality, and in redefining a cultural moral code. Some of what we've come to accept as a society is long, long overdue. And some of what we've come to accept undermines the very dignity of human sexuality. But, we're learning.
We do know this, though: we know that among other sexual behaviours, Torah law expressly forbids the specific act of male homosexuality.
And we do know this: Torah law forbids bigotry; homophobia is prohibited.
And we do know this: too many Jewish girls and boys, Jewish women and men, have suffered too much for too long. And we know that most of that suffering is caused by the environment around them. We do know this: when we become judges of another person, we behave contrary to Torah law.
Informative. Instructive. Interesting. High marks! (I have so much wanted "help" with deep insights into Judaism. I do not have time or a direction to travel in to learn truly deep insights into such rich and historic people.)
This calls for reconciliation between directives. Spirituality does have a practical component. After one has it made explicitly clear to them that a technique or tenet can not perform in isolation. "Making friendly" the two things is required. The outcome is to allow yourself and others to find a way through on the matter. In my strong opinion.
Calbab,
What it is actually saying is that it is not up to man to judge his fellow man because that becomes bigotry.
I understand. Thank you.
So, Abraham wasn’t the father of the Jewish people and religion? What about his grandson Jacob whom God renamed Israel? Were not the tribes of Israel named after his sons and grandsons from Joseph? What were the people who were their descendants after Israel and his other sons moved to Egypt during the famine to be with Joseph, then second only to the king in Egypt through when God directed Moses to lead His people out of Egypt?
OK, David & Solomon.
As long as the Christian sects obey the separation of church and state, the erotophobes in the various sects are free to make fools of themselves showing their fear and ignorance 24/7.
Interesting word, this. (-:
In this case I fully agree with your assessment of the situation. For the sake of clarification, you may be able to assist further:
1. What category/ies of sexuality causes the humanist communities to behave erotophobic?
I don't believe there is one defining cause from what I have read.
Erotophobia has many manifestations. An individual or culture can have one or multiple erotophobic attitudes. Some types of erotophobia include fear of nudity , fear of sexual images, homophobia , fear of sex education , fear of sexual discourse. [2
and a more in depth article. Religious teaching is listed as one of the causes.
So there is no erotophobia that you can name in the humanist communities? Everything sexual is copacetic in there, is that it?
There probably is. Although I would wager not to the extent that you might find in more theistic settings, especially the more evangelical or fundamentalist. The cause of erotophobia is probably also different between humanist and religious camps.
One can only hope.
How the Hell would I know? I was raised as an evangelical Christian and have spent the vast majority of my life in the Bible Belt surrounded by people who want to legislate the uterus, but view the word "uterus" as some kind of profane word on par with the word "fuck".
In the Bible Belt, "good" girls don't have sex and submit to their husband for procreation purposes after marriage. Wives should do everything possible not to create lust in men, including their husbands because lust is just not godly and men should be plucking out their eyes or some such nonsense.
I can never think about how ludicrous the Christians are about lust without remember poor old Jimmy Carter and his admitting to having "lusted". LOL!
Sex without lust/desire is rape. However, women who inspire lust/desire are wanton whores. The Bible Belt has a dress code for "good" girls and then there are the rest of us.
The truth is that the Abrahamic religion is a construct of men. Their god has a penis, demands worship and absolute obedience...except for the times that men break all the rules and are given a get out of Hell free card by their god sacrificing himself to save men from being men.
The Abrahamic religions" rules are made by men, justified by men and infractions by men are forgiven by men.
As a woman, I know the rules well. I have no tolerance for those rules or for the people who expect me to observe or respect them. After sixty years, my give a damn is busted.
mocowgirl, I got all that. I do not live in the "Bible belt." I live out West. I daresay I am not part of "the problem." I believe we should let people make their own decisions, and come to believer-state in their own time - if ever.
Now then, I do have radios (car, over the head) and as I go about my corresponding duties I listen to Christian Talk Radio in my area for insights. Apparently, Seventh Day Adventist (Sabbath-keepers) dominate the station for the duration. It is somewhat amusing and maybe equally alarming to hear how Adventists issue instructions to their membership over the airwaves. To be clear, I am Protestant and no-church affiliated, though I am surrounded by a "chorus" of church voices at-will through a myriad of books, radio, internet, and cable television.
The Adventists have a great many biblical truths and group positives, but they do have areas of "bondage" that I can see too, in my opinion. In addition, so do the Right-wing evangelicals. Largely, it is because they are trying to live out the Old Testament principles in a New Testament era. I do not understand why push those rules and laws upon themselves, except that they do it out of pride. Pride in their performance (alone). And, as we all have been told since childhood, excessive pride can be a curse.
Without rejecting science, how could anyone believe in the myth of creation?
No creation = no Adam and Eve = no forbidden fruit = no original sin = no need for blood sacrifice = no Jesus.
It is akin to believing in Santa Claus after being told the truth.
You took the words out of my mouth. I'm surrounded by Mennonites who want to turn the social/religious clock back 200 years. I do my best not to laugh at their idiocy, but there is a limit to what I will tolerate.
There were a couple of Mennonite men who used to hang around an area bar. I stayed away from them until one night when I was playing pool and one put quarters up. The man spoke to me like I was a hooker. I walked away and kept my distance from then on.
Sure, my husband could have wiped the floor with the idiot, but I am accustomed to dealing with self-righteous Christian men who are trying to play grab ass with me from Monday thru Saturday and then sitting in the front pew on Sunday morning.
It is best to stay out of reaching distance at all times and out of speaking distance whenever possible.
I suppose that is why I do not need some ignore feature on the internet. I am well accustomed to putting people on ignore in real life. This does seem to bother some people. I used to tell my (ex) husband "Go away, you do not exist" when he was drunk and I did not want to deal with him. He used to try to get me to go to church on Sunday and pray for his soul. I told him that I was spending Sundays with him on the lake fishing or in the fields hunting quail. If his soul needed praying for then he could contact his mother or do it himself.
TO: mocowgirl:
I am so sorry that Christians have made your life so intolerable. Is there some way you can move?
My Christianity has always made me happy, but there are things that happen outside of my religion that, sometimes, I have no control over that cause me problems. The controlling man syndrome doesn't only apply to those religious nor does the archaic views on sex.
It seems to me you have found your way out of their control, but bitterness it is not a good thing to carry around.
And that is fine for you.
The Abrahamic religions are harmful to women period. There is no reason to tolerate abuse in the name of appeasing some religious sect's idea of a woman's place in society.
Bitter? Maybe, some. Mostly, it is that I won't tolerate religious busybodies dictating my life in any form. There is no reason to. I have read the Bible. There is no place in the Bible that tells Christians to conquer and oppress others.
When a Christian is told NO, I don't believe in your god, go away. Then the Christian needs to go away instead of forcing their way into the lives of others. Unfortunately, too many people believe that they have a right to force people to live by the rules of their religious sect. This has been going on ever since men created religion. Before religion, men fought over mates and territory. After religion, men fought over mates and territory.
Some of us would like to have a life without worrying about constant wars being fought over "protecting women and children" when it is really about men killing each other (and women and children) over gaining more power, money, and territory.
For Christians to claim that they are fighting to protect women and girls from cruel treatment is hypocritical at best.
What? You lost me. Sorry.
What what? That evolution alone makes the creation story a myth and therefore, the need for a savior completely bogus.
There is absolutely nothing that makes the Jewish myths any less a myth than all of the other religions that we know are myths today.
Myth of creation? Here is the misconception that many, Christians included, have about the Bible, and the many stories told in it: The BIBLE was NEVER intended to be a History of the World.
Genesis, traditionally said to be authored by Moses, was written to explain Gods relationship with man. It has nothing to do with world history. The story of the Creation is intended to show that man was borne from the creation of God. Does this mean that evolution didn't happen? Not at all. It means that however Man came to be, it was by the Grace of God. Moses didn't have a degree in Biology or Anthropology. So his narration of the origins of man are simple: God created man.
So does this mean that all the stories of Genesis are fables? Consider this. Every religion in the world has a story of a flood in it's history, with Man surviving and re-populating the world.
Yeah, we have a lot of Christians who don't understand this. And insist on Creationism as a literal truth. They are wrong. Not for believing in God, but for missing the entire point of the book of Genesis.
Let us pray...
I somewhat agree with you Bruce.
The Bible is early (after the invention of writing) man's story of his relationship to God as he understood Him.
We don't even know if those who wrote the Bible intended or expected that it would be the basis of religious belief thousands of years later.
I don't see her comments as being bitter but simply realistic about what Christianity actually does to women and minorities.
That reveals that many superstitious cultures had a limited awareness of the rest of the world. It also shows that it rains in various places.
And your point is...
Me too. I don’t know how I’d be happy without my beliefs. I’m definitely a believer in creation science and the literal flood. I know this whole thing is about the Nashville document which I generally support. Not sure what Old Testament things calbab thinks Adventists or evangelicals he referenced above are enslaved to since we are saved by grace through faith. Maybe he will come back and explain himself.
What's your point?
Yes, myth of creation.
The Abrahamic religion is based on creation of man in their god's image. A very flawed man who cannot obey the simplest of instructions to not eat of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Of course, as the story goes, it is woman who is blamed for the downfall of Adam....and then all mankind.
Then the god, Yahweh, has to eventually be born of a virgin and be killed as Yeshua in order to grant evil men entrance into eternal Heaven to keep this god company and praise him for all eternity.
There are people with more scientific knowledge than I who can explain the flood myth. I don't know why anyone would require explanation on why a man cannot survive being eaten by a whale.
Also, depending on the sect, Yeshua did not destroy the old laws, so the people eating the wrong diet, wearing the wrong clothes, not stoning their unruly to children to death and disobeying other OT rules are not going to make their way through the pearly gates where they will spend eternity praising Yahweh (the purpose that they were created for).
My point is that everyone wants to concentrate on the word Myth as an explanation of the Bible. Fiction. Fables. They completely miss the fact that the Bible is a guide. Not an encyclopedia. If you don't want to believe that God created man, simply because the Bible doesn't say so in a scientific way, fine. I'm completely fine with accepting that my Creator is God. And although I accept what science tells me about the real history of the earth, (even though there is no clear consensus on HOW it was made), my faith tells me that it was all the hand of God that did so. When I read Genesis, I don't read it to find out the mechanics of how the earth was made. Only that it was made by God. That is my faith. I don't care what your faith is. I don't care that you do or do not believe in a God. What I do care about is the misconception that all Christians that believe in the Bible MUST reject science. Or that all who accept science, must reject the Bible as fiction.
Yeah but he gave women the ability to have multiple orgasms, so...
I seek to give as good as I get.
Men could learn to experience much more pleasure if they would learn to relax and partner with a woman in all aspects of life.
There are rainy days that are literally made for all day and all night teasing and sex until it is impossible to get stressed about much of anything for a week.
Sex with an erotophobe is a waste of time, at best and in my experience, eventually turns into marital rape.
Without the literal reading of Genesis the entire concept of a perfect human being created by God and then sin entering through that perfect man and thus death through sin, there would be no need of a ransom sacrifice which is the main theme of the Bible. So if evolution is true and there were many humans who evolved it would make no difference if one of them sinned, the others could have avoided that sin, and thus no need for Christ to come and die on our behalf. I make this point not as one who believes in the literal Genesis account, but as one who recognizes that the entire premise of the bible is hinged on it and thus makes the entire bible just the flawed musings of a man who had been taught religion as a Prince of Egypt and incorporated ancient Egyptian mythology to create a new mythology to control the masses of people he had just rescued. It's why Atum and Adam share a name. Atum was considered to be the first god in Egyptian mythology, having created himself, sitting on a mound (benben) (or identified with the mound itself), from the primordial waters (Nu).
This is a point I have been overlooking, even as I have been meaning to comment on this very issue for "days." Thank you for bringing it up and out today!
I'd love to discuss it and anything else you wish, my brother. I am exhausted and just stopped by late to 'hit' you up after I saw you on my private note list! Tomorrow, if you wish. (-:
That's essentially what it is.
So is Aesop's fables.
Science aside, I don't believe it because it is completely ludicrous and irrational.
You can believe whatever you like. But belief does not equal fact.
See previous statement.
That's still biblical myth. Faith doesn't change that fact!
None.
I don't.
Considering many Christians reject evolution or the Big Bang, it's not so much a misconception.
Some parts or claims of the bible are incompatible with actual science.
Okay. Singled out, the obvious firm issue for Seventh-Day Adventists is Saturday, Sabbath-keeping, which is exported to the radio listening audience as often as feasible in a half-hour listening block. Then, there is this firm discontent with television viewing as a whole (except for Adventist programming). Next, comes a firm dislike and 'taking down' of popular music which is sold as diabolical spiritually and audibly harmful due to its piercing, screeching notes. They insist that sacred music is all which is needed daily in the life of their faithful.
As for Right-wing (RW) evangelical radio and TV shows, the messages conveyed are pretty much designed for "bubble-living" inside this country, or social and cultural domination/takeover when existing out in "the world." The latter can be pushed as a rationale for why RW conservatives and evangelicals partner so heavily with the NRA and its lobbyist wing to allow gun proliferation and no significant manipulation of Second Amendment policies and regulations, in my opinion. Though, as Christians, we are disposed to quiet living and peace with all men and women. Thus, our truest form of 'combat' ought to occur when engaging the minds and spirits of others.
The Old Testament documents passed away. God moved on and away form that, as for as the gentiles, "nations" are concerned. Believers get in all sorts of spiritual devilment when we try to engage the surrounding world of ideas with relic concepts which were ultimately designed to show an ancient nation its limitations in achieving spiritual superiority apart from God's free-giving grace.
So, what about all the quoted verse from Old Testament in the new? What about when Jesus quoted from the now Old Testament in his teachings? Also all the prophecy in the Old Testament that perfectly and exactly covered virtually every aspect of the timing and conditions of His birth, life, death, and resurrection as the Messiah? What of Daniel which is largely repeated and expanded upon in The Revelation of Jesus Christ? While the ceremonial laws and sacrifice laws that led to the Messiah making His sacrifice on the cross that we might through faith in His saving grace be saved were nailed to the cross, the Old Testament as a whole was not. Christians were given the entire Bible, not just the New Testament as important as it clearly is.
Thank you, Singled Out! While most of what you wrote is definitely true, a questions springs up from within:
What is the clear difference between an old contractual agreement and a new contractual agreement?
The way I heard it, Adam ate the apple first, then became smart enough to blame Eve. /s
Well, this particularly egregious article with it 14 articles has been presented to NT. I do not agree with the Right-wing conservative evangelicals who push this type of narrative upon society at Large. Funny, it is a 'working' document for the signees.
It reminds me of the "Manhattan Declaration" which Watergate felon Chuck Colson and the founder of the NOM anti-gay hate group wrote a few years ago. No surprise that many of the very same bigoted bible-babblers are signatories on the "Nashville Statement" too.
I observe and call these people, "The usual suspects." Now, if I could just get these repeaters to sign onto the laborious and eternal work of building and being the glue in the establishment of the one Church, with one message.
I doubt there's ever been such a thing, certainly not in Christianity. Even Paul admits that he teaches a different ideology than the actual disciples teach.
How do I phrase this. Does your criticizing spirit know no limit? Paul, was dedicated by the Apostles in Jerusalem to plant new churches outside Jerusalem. I am sorry, but if I or anybody else, has to keep dealing with your deliberate distractions or use of higher criticisms, when you should seek rather than quibble/quarrel, then the words of Nehemiah come to mind:
This is something that just has to be pointed out every now and again. Where are your references to demonstrate Paul's teaching of a different, (negative) "ideology" than the Apostles?
See "One Corinthians" 1:10-17 where Paul admits that the ideology he teaches is different from that which others teach. There are also other passages where the apostles rebuke and reject what Paul teaches, and where Paul rebukes them. My only point here was that the Christian cult never had a monolithic ideology even early on despite the later efforts of the NIcene Council to consolidate the cult.
Why do you take disagreement so personally? Why do you attack personally those who disagree with you?
Well now, coming from you that is rich!
When have I taken your belief in god personally?
When have I attacked you personally? Hint - disagreeing with you is not attacking you personally. Pointing out logical fallacies in your comments is also not attacking you personally.
Sorry, this has become a distraction. You have been answered unceasingly. If nothing improves your attitude towards this discussion or this writer, then it is not my problem for any longer. While I am repeating words with you, other points in discussion go underserved or not served at all. Maybe that is the intention, but as the saying goes, "all things come to an end."
That's another personal attack, you know. And you're evading.
In the opening letter of I Corinthians 1:10 - 17, Paul is asking the Corinthians about talk of cliques forming in the church community as one group takes "credit" or pride in the leader who led them into believing. As they are "babes" and the faith is wholly new and in development, Paul is informing them that Jesus is not and can not be divided among his followers in such a manner as each group sought to do. He is instructing them to focus on the head and not the members of the body in this new faith. Thank you for sharing.
Can you show me?
Many scientists are atheists or agnostics who want to believe that the natural world they study is all there is, and being only human, they try to persuade themselves that science gives them grounds for that belief. It’s an honorable belief, but it isn’t a research finding. —Matt Cartmill, "Oppressed by Evolution."
Scientists study the natural world, but no one will say that's all there is. There simply is not any evidence for any "world" other than the natural one. And science is not based on belief or vice versa.
Science has nothing to tell us about moral values or the purpose of existence or the realm of the supernatural. That doesn't mean there is nothing to be said about these things. It just means that scientists don't have any expert opinions. Science looks exclusively at the finite facts of nature, and unfortunately, logical reasoning can't carry you from facts to values, or from the finite to the infinite. As the philosopher David Hume pointed out 250 years ago, you can't infer an infinite cause from a finite effect. But science's necessary silence on these questions doesn't prove
that there isn't any infinite cause or that right and wrong are arbitrary conventions, or that there is no plan or purpose behind the world. And I'm afraid that a lot of scientists go around saying that science proves these things.
—Matt Cartmill, Anthropologist, "Oppressed by Evolution."
While presuming that there's a "purpose" to existence or that there's a "realm of the supernatural" are obvious logical fallacies, it should be noted that science has a lot to say about how morality has evolved in species which live in social groups . Even dogs have a sense of fairness.
And to put an economic spin on the evolution of morality, were it not for his father's fortune a sociopath like Trump would have been driven out of society long ago because he simply doesn't play well with others. Throughout human evolution such persons were the winners of the Darwin Awards.
I see a routine apples and oranges argument occurring with this sociable monkey story. Did I miss the connection to human morals, existence, and the supernatural?
Human morals may well not have a connection to the supernatural, same as human existence. Science seeks to explain existence without reference to the supernatural, until the supernatural can be shown objectively to exist (in which case, it wouldn't be supernatural).
Science can be applied to explain behavior among both animals and humans (who are animals themselves), including morality and altruistic behavior. Morality generally serves to improve survival of the group - be it a tribe, pride, herd, or the species as a whole.
And neither does the Bible unless a person believes that murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery and child abuse are moral.
and I have to wonder why there are Christians so obsessed with gay marriage and so willing to ignore what is actually written in their Bible.
Let's change it up a bit. Is this Atheist "out-reach"?
I believe this IS Atheist outreach on the web right here and now. Consequently, there is not the slightest interest or regard for any good conduct or peaceable activities done by Christians or other people of faith. In an activist hands the Books of the Bible are manipulate and mangled. Such strategies and tactics are contrived and utterly deceitful. One has only to wonder just how political Atheism on the web intends to become.
The militant Atheist became the curtain can come stand at center-stage now. The gig is up!
Not as far as I am concerned. I am speaking truth. There is no spin. There is none needed on my part.
Without cherry picking, the Bible is filled with atrocities and commandments that no one obeys - of course, if Christians stoned their unruly children to death they would be serving serious prison time in our secular society.
And, of course, I have no reason to ignore that evolution destroys the whole Adam and Eve scenario and original sin. Without original sin, there is no need for Yahweh to be born as Yeshua to be sacrificed to himself in order for him to forgive his sinful creations.
I have no reason to ignore the harm that the Christian religion has done and continues to do in society. I don't know why anyone should ignore the harm that the Christian religion has done throughout history and continues to do today.
In fact, I believe it is imperative to speak the truth so we never regress back to the coercion, the torture, the drownings, the hangings, the burnings at the stake and the wars that have resulted from the Christians spreading their religion and imposing it on people who had their own religions long before the Christians arrived on the scene.
Christians, in the US, don't have to practice Hinduism, Islam, Wicca, etc. or know and live by their religions' rules.
Christians need to understand that the Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, etc. don't have to practice Christianity or know about Christian rules.
You posted the website for "Evil Bible" publicly. It blows up the cover story that all Atheists are "free-thinkers." Finally, the onion sheds a top layer . . . . What maybe coming out next,. . . Lawrence Krauss, scientist, in his honest opinion, admitting that there is no such think as utter free-will even though Atheists act and insist on the record that there is free-will?
Sunlight and exposure is like disinfectant, many say!
The theory of evolution simply reads those shared features as family resemblances. It doesn't deny that people are unique in important ways. Our kinship with apes doesn't mean we're only apes under the skin, any more than the kinship of cats with dogs means that your cat is repressing a secret urge to bark and bury bones.
— Matt Cartmill, Anthropologist.
Duh. It was the best source to have Biblical text that documented the atrocities engineered and committed by the barbaric god, Yahweh.
I wasn't aware of any atheist "cover" story. However, if there was one and I am the first to "blow" it, will I receive the proper recognition for being "first"?
I am not trying to defend the indefensible. However, for over 5 decades of my life, I tried. I cherry-picked with the best of them. I have probably used every argument that I read online today because I was given the appropriate talking points from my pastor, my friends and the publications that I read.
My life is much happier and joyful now that I left the Christian cult that I had been indoctrinated into from the age of 2.
It only happened because some very nice people took the time to explain evolution, scientific fact that busted the Noah myth, scientific facts that busted the Jonah myth and so on and so forth. I was taught the Bible was fact because at one time few people had the nerve or power to publicly openly oppose Biblical teaching. There were several US presidents that were most likely atheists, but said the appropriate things at the appropriate times to keep the Christian mob at bay.
Now that there is open scientific discussion about Biblical "facts", the Christian leaders have moved the goal posts and declared that the Bible is not to be taken literally in order to try to keep people under their control.
People are not born believing in a god or belief system. A god or belief system is assigned to them by their parents, community and society. Then people of differing belief systems continually fight over the one truer than truer god. The mob with the better lethal weapons have usually won the fight.
We have to look no further than what the Christians did to the Native American Indians to see how Christians have spread the word in the US. It mirrors what has happened throughout Christianity's history as Christians forced their religion onto others.
Europeans were astonished to see that Cherokee women were the equals of men—politically, economically and theologically. “Women had autonomy and sexual freedom, could obtain divorce easily, rarely experienced rape or domestic violence, worked as producers/farmers, owned their own homes and fields, possessed a cosmology that contains female supernatural figures, and had significant political and economic power,” she writes. “Cherokee women’s close association with nature, as mothers and producers, served as a basis of their power within the tribe, not as a basis of oppression. Their position as ‘the other’ led to gender equivalence, not hierarchy.”
Johnston says that both men and women were sexually liberated, and unions were typically based on mutual attraction. The concept of being ashamed of one’s body or physical desires was foreign to the Cherokee mind-set.
Cherokees strictly obeyed individual taboos on food and sex, but those taboos were specific to one’s circumstances and usually temporary. It is not at all surprising that the joyless, rigid, sex-negative, and guilt-intensive view of life, pitched to the Cherokees by the European missionaries in the early 18th century, was initially met with very little enthusiasm. “Because the Cherokees did not believe in the depravity of human nature, the majority of the Nation continued to resist this new view of themselves,” Johnston writes.
Matt Cartmill, Creationist
According to the flood myth, we would all have to be descendants of Noah.
If this was true, we would all have Noah's DNA in our genetic code.
Says you. And you are again?
Says Matt Cartmill. And he is who again? A creationist trying to spin creationism into science books.
The above quote is simply a snippet taken from a larger article written by an evolution supporting scientist. The subject matter for the article is evolution and Conservative Christians.
Yes, Matt is explaining why the Bible can't be literally true, not why the Bible and creationism can't be true.
Perhaps, you can share a Matt quote saying the Bible is a fable and creationism can't be true from an evolutionary standpoint.
Only if you inform your local activist chapter of your "deed." There are plenty of Atheist "religion-shaming" sites on the web, you may only be a "first" on NT.
I will add this. For my Conservative Christian brethren. This is the degree of vitriol you have unleashed on the web by trying to force the secular community to exist without a voice.
Quoting your own scripture is vitriol?
I admit, some of it is pretty horrific, but pointing out that it's horrific is hardly vitriol.
Perhaps Atheists can come out from under the covers; stop feigning ignorance of explicit Atheist activism and exploitation on the web.
Atheist activism and belligerence will not drive people of faith and religious ideology from the public marketplace. Religion-shaming won't drive people of faith from the web. Showing up with a internet "megaphone" every where the name Jesus is mentioned won't get it done. The tactic of drowning out and grounding otherwise productive discussion to a halt will end post haste.
Why your hatred of Atheists? What has an Atheist ever done to harm you?
I am ignostic.
I am discussing what I have lived and sharing historical information on the Christian religion.
I am sure that if the Cherokee (and every other conquered people with differing belief systems) had had the internet when they were being "converted" their stories would not have been well-received by the Christians either. Their voices have long been silenced, but their stories live on.
Quoting your own scripture is belligerent?
How am I drowning out conversation? By disagreeing with you? Can one only converse with those with whom one agrees? How very boring.
True faith should be able to bear some criticism.
I agree.
Look at the diversity in 5 major world belief systems. The blog below is written by a Christian using a smattering of info as an intro into converting others to the Christian belief system of having a person god, but the intro about how this Christian easily sums up and dismisses other belief systems at least acknowledges there are other major world religions.
It does not acknowledge that Hinduism is the world's oldest known religion or that today it has around 1 billion followers.
I must disagree with you here. There are many studies showing clear similarities between human and animal morals. It appears to be a matter of degree, not kind. Animals share our emotional abilities as well as our sense of morality. I read one study that showed when a dog saw someone refuse to help their master, they would refuse to take treats from him.
Hey Mocowgirl,
Hope you are having a nice day. I wonder why Christians attempt to "Convert" anyone. I know that it is our duty to spread the good news of Jesus.......but it isn't our problem to Convert anyone.....
I ask .....why would any Christian want you to become a Christian? Answer: I would like to see you become a Christian because I want others to experience the joy and comfort that it brings me..... having a personal relationship with God...That being said....it is not my responsibility to "Convert" anyone.......So it is my hope that the nonbeliever doesn't take anything that I say to them as being an attack for the purpose to belittle them or make fun of them.......Instead, it is out of caring and Love for others...believer or not.
I know that it is our duty to spread the good news of Jesus
Duty? At ease soldier - your duties are totally unwanted.
I would like to see you become a Christian because I want others to experience the joy and comfort that it brings me..... having a personal relationship with God
I only wish you could see how ridiculous that is.
Hi! I see you have a friend in your avatar. Frankly, I have not equipped myself to discuss animal morality or any such thing. Though, when I observe animals in nature I do see "something" and it amuses me. I do not try to extract truth from it. I do not have a personal animal "friend" in my life. Moreover, I am wise enough not to step on the real feeling of my animal-loving friends and foes. (-:
I understand, but it's not simply anecdotal. A lot of sophisticated studies have been done, up to and including training dogs to sit motionless in MRI machines to record what portions of their brain is working under different stimuli. Observations of primates show the same thing. It only makes sense, our brains are very similar and our cultures are as well. Ideas like justice and fair play are shared and why not?
That is ridiculous. You don't know me or anything about me or the others that you are trying to convert to your religious sect.
Personally, I am not a sinner. I was not born a sinner. I do not commit sins. I do not require a savior to save me from the Christian's place of eternal torment called Hell. If Hell did exist, the very last thing I would want to do is to have any kind of relationship with the evil being who created it and a system that required a place of eternal torment.
I find nothing joyous or comforting about the premise of the Christian religion. I also resent being threatened by its cult members in person, on public property, and in government.
I do not know how it is possible for anyone in the US to escape knowing about the Christian religion. There are churches on every corner - usually with signs advertising what they believe in. Maybe, people don't like the messengers and the message. Or maybe, people have heard the sales pitch and found it impossible to believe in.
I remember being badgered by some acquaintance at work about my beliefs. He kept on and on "Aren't you concerned about where you are going to spend eternity?" I finally answered "I don't know and I don't care. But anywhere away from the Christian zealots would have to be a vacation." He finally quit trying to badger me into fearing Hell if I did not fall on my knees, confess my sins, and pledge my life to his god. This happened at my work place!
"Duty"? You have a duty to respect the rights of others to live their public lives without being harassed by threats of Hell, threats of Armageddon, and being verbally abused in anyway for not living their lives according so some Christian sect's standards.
If you don't want to read my statements......nobody is forcing you.....and yes....as a Christian it is my duty to spread the good news of Jesus Christ.
Do you know the joy and comfort that my belief brings me?
You are correct.....I don't know you.....but I do know that it is impossible for you to have the joy that knowing Jesus Christ brings me. I'm not implying that you are not joyous or happy......I'm simply saying you can't enjoy something that you refuse to partake in.
I am sorry that someone tried to force you to become a Christian. That is wrong in the workplace and wrong anywhere. If you don't want to hear my message that is fine with me. I am not here to judge you nor do I have the power to know your heart.
But I'm curious......If you don't want to hear about Jesus...and you don't like pushing their religious ideas into others face......then why are you participating in this discussion?
Read:
I'd have to think about it. Help me make the connection to human spirituality and contract with a superior being such as God, nevertheless. (What I am lacking is how to connect this "new information" to the God discussion we are having. To me, it seems a different and separate matter. What do you think?)
(I am feeling around for the issue here.) Are our ideas and concepts of morality necessarily different from the rest of the animal kingdom?
Because despite the fact that some Christians are fine with people saying "NO" to their religion, other Christians are trying to write their version of Christian laws into binding laws in the US.
As long as there are Christians who try to force their way into the public sector such as schools and into the government anywhere in the US, I will continue to speak out against their religion, the house of sand the Christian religion has been built on and the history of violence and bloodshed that Christians used to force others to give up their religions and belief systems.
No one should fear the Christian god, it does not exist. It is the Christians who can't take "NO" for an answer that is the problem.
I was a Christian for over 5 decades of my life. I know how the system works.
I was a Christian for over 5 decades of my life. It did not bring me comfort and joy.
I am far happier and joyous knowing that Yahweh is just another myth like Zeus, Odin, Apollo, and the tens of thousands of gods that mankind invented over the years to explain things that they did not understand and to control the gullible.
Is anyone here in this discussion forcing their beliefs on you or others? If so......how?
I am commenting about the Nashville group who have their knickers in a twist because the US government and even some Christian sects are not upholding tenets of their version of Christian law.
There is no reason for anyone outside of the Christian belief system to know or care about the rules of the Christian religion. Certainly, no one should be legally bound to obey Christian law. Christians don't have to approve of divorce, but they should not have a legal voice preventing it - even when it involves members of their own church. The Catholic sect can choose to recognize a marriage or grant a divorce according to their rules and penalize their members accordingly, but it has no legal rights outside of their church.
I see absolutely no reason why I should not be commenting about the overreach of religion, the violent history of religion, the origins of religion and the reasons why society should not be ruled by mythical beings created by ancient mankind.
A respectful way to go about what you consider to be your duty would be to wait for folks to ask you about your religion. I'd wager almost everyone you encounter has heard about Christ, and has ample opportunity to find out more, if they feel so inclined. If they're interested, they'll ask.
Is this article about "The Nashville Group"?
Translation: my religion gives me permission to intrude in other peoples business, whether they want it or not. Such sanctimonious arrogance!
I see it in the title.....Nevermind.
Personally, I don't care what people do in the Privacy of their own homes. However, I do get tired of people who have no other intention in a discussion ......except belittlement and mockery of ALL Christians.
I have no intention of invading anyone's life. As I have stated before.....it isn't my job to Convert anyone.....I am only responsible for spreading his word......and yes I know his word is available to most here America.....so I don't have a huge responsibility.....
Translation: Gordy, you do not have any business in here that others can not engage in or debate over and beyond. As for mentioning the Gospel, God, Jesus, Paul, Satan, devils, Pharaoh, and/or scientists, lawyers, doctors, Humanists, and/or Atheists,
IT'S ALL GOOD AND MENTIONABLE BECAUSE IT'S WHAT THE DISCUSSION IS ABOUT.
Did you ask or receive an invite into the discussion suggesting you bring your God denials and Atheism? Did NT Home Page have a beaming spotlight signaling for you to 'come in'? As you are fun of stating: "It's an open forum."
TAP can tell you about Jesus in here in any manner, shape, or "texture" even he desires. I encourage him to do as you do: Write until he gets tired or not.
No one here is ridiculing all Christians, just the bigoted morons involved in the Nashville Statement. Note that the authors and signatories have also been involved in fighting against equal civil rights for LGBT folks so the real problem here is their desire to use our secular government to enforce their Christian sharia laws on everyone else.
We can't do that. But we can say that human morality has direct parallels in the behavior of other animals which live in social groups, and that there are evolutionary advantages for such behavior. In other words you don't need a sky fairy to explain morality.
Public forum designed specifically for discussion.
Unwanted proselytizing invites a frank assessment of your religion's less favorable aspects, which you seem to resent.
Shrekk, your contempt for this discussion, spirituality, and God has already been noted. (There is so much background noise in here.)
Don't kid yourself! The underlying reason to "spread his word" is to convert others.
Who are you to say what my "business" here is, or suggest that I do not have business here?
And I am addressing the discussion and points made.
Skrekk happens to make a good point and is correct too.
I don't see why it should be different. The concepts of morality are universal. Look at the 10C's, take away the god-centric laws and what do you have left? Don't steal, don't murder and don't lie. Social animals follow these rules about as much as we do, murder is uncommon, some stealing and lying ( being duplicitous) do happen. Primates have been known to misdirect others in their troop from a particularly tasty fruit, they do sometimes steal food from weaker members, a lot like humans. However, killing a member of the troop is very rare. It looks like many human morals are derived from earlier animal societies, and why not, we are animals. I don't see animals having a god, and that seems to point to morals coming before the idea of god in an evolutionary manner, and gods may simply be the enforcers of societal rules. Gods also provide a binding connection with others in the tribe, along with religious rules, like the Jewish dietary laws. They aren't essential for survival, but they do provide an isolating mechanism that keeps the tribe intact. Now, all this may be true and there still might be a God, there is simply no way to rule it out.
Sorry but I disagree with you statement:
"No one here is ridiculing all Christians,"
Statements comparing God to Lepricans and Fairies is certainly ridiculing All Christians......and for that matter all Jews.
And all of the polytheists who worship many gods. There are hundreds, if not thousands of gods, that people worship. Why do you keep ignoring the existence of those gods? Don't you believe in them?
You are aware that a "god" is not unique to Judeo Christian belief and as you feel it is a mockery to draw upon the similarity to other superstitious concepts so be it. The fundamental problem with groups such as the Nashville is that they have an agenda to infuse the rules they have written upon the entire nation. I do understand just as they do that this will be difficult and they must persevere as we must also do to oppose them. It takes great energy to continually oppose the next incarnation of those attempting to impose their beliefs, so rendering them as inconsequential is the best alternative.
Is a science web site a flat earth shaming site or does it seek to educated the willfully ignorant? People that point out the absurdity of biblical stories are simply attempting to educate even if done poorly what critical thinking can do.
God is God. I certainly believe in God, the problem is, I don't know which God he is.
This happened at my work place!
That sounds horrible, but your response was perfect. Yesterday, I found myself in a car with my boss and our secretary, and they got into a religious discussion that made me want to vomit. It is really sad how deluded these people are to think that everyone wants to hear about that garbage.
I don't believe in them.....but I don't go into a forum discussion about said deity and belittle everyone that does.
I live in the Bible Belt so I am accustomed to people fighting about religion from daylight to dark and beyond. Family members who dare belong to a different church than the majority are browbeaten to silence and even driven out of family celebrations because they have joined a cult and their family members seem to believe it is their "duty" to "save" them.
These people take their religion seriously. There is not a "Christian" religion, there are Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Church of Christ, Jehovah Witnesses, Pentecostals, Catholics, etc. And there are even divisions in some of the aforementioned. Mostly, each one denounces the others as being nothing more than cults and their members are going to Hell for not being a member of the one true church following the one true set of laws.
In the last 25 years, these people have become crazed about confronting strangers about their beliefs. Even when I was an evangelical Christian, I found it highly intrusive to be questioned about my personal beliefs and my church affiliation. Now, I find it completely insane and have a difficult time not showing it.
A few years ago, while I was at work, a customer was telling me how her daughter's house had just burned down and the family had lost everything. However, the family was really "blessed" because the Lord had woken them in time to save their lives. I could not help giving her my "you really aren't serious" look. She turned beet red. I told her that I was happy they survived and she left.
the family was really "blessed" because the Lord had woken them in time to save their lives
Makes you wonder why he doesn't save everyone from fires. I suppose that when you believe this line of reasoning, it can only mean that those who succumb deserved it for something or other. Oh wait - almost forgot - he works in mysterious ways.
And no one is making you.
This is my choice to discuss what is going on in the United States and the world today.
I am discussing facts, experiences, and why religious belief systems have no place in secular society.
I am not here to soft sell my religious product under the claim that I am doing it in the name of saving the helpless sinners who are Hellbound if I don't introduce them to Yeshua. I am well aware of the carrot and stick methods used to recruit converts into the various religious sects.
No one should ever be under the delusion that they were born a doomed sinner with no hope of redemption without joining a sect of the Christian religion.
No one should ever be threatened with Eternal damnation and torment for not believing in a sect of the Christian religion and following cherry-picked rules from a book that has been translated, edited and then rinse and repeat for hundreds of years.
It's simply stating a fact. It seems quite naive and arrogant for you to expect other people to share your superstitions.
What?
The underlying reason is to spread the word as listed. If anything else occurs then it is on the listener. Then again, you are spreading. . .something around too—*gasp,* are you 'working the room'?
So is TAP! Buzz!
Moreover, very few if any become a humanist or a believer through a comment board. I encourage the believers and everybody else to add appropriate content as befits the discussion. Don't quench the spirit!
I hereby welcome all believers, spirit-filled, and anointed individuals, to the discussions I start on News Talkers. All faiths qualify and are welcomed.
Of course, when you bring your faith. . .tell us what your faith means to, for, in your life.
Maybe. But on the other hand, we humans have a knack for transferring our feelings onto animals. See scientists knitting words together to explain the "mindset" of an animal in a documentary. I have seen enough of instinct in animals to accept that they have a sense of community, maybe even purpose. Our bigger brains must account for something more than instincts, including in the formulation of our communities For our communities are not simple—they are complex. Next, we moved away from nakedness and we cease to drink the (wildness) blood of our victims. Furthermore, humans think not just along a baseline of judgments, we look to improve and enhance our manners when we find something is horribly inadequate in our conduct. (Yeah, the last sentence may need more thought.)
If you think that is insulting, you are ridiculing those who believe in fairies and leprechauns, and yes, such people have existed. Why do your beliefs deserve any more respect than theirs?
So is Atheism, Humanism, or Secularism a religion product now. I just want to know for the record, please.
Let me get this straight. You did not intrude on their reality even a little to tell them just how sad and "vomitey" they make you feel? How you wanted to get out that car and go get in your own? Now that's garbage!
Is not playing golf a sport?
How can not believing in a god be considered a religion?
How much arrogance? About as much as a humanist commandeering science for its "cause" to attempt to destroy world religions? Science does not care to investigate God. Humanists lie. In fact, I find that Humanism is starting out writing its own "generations" of organizing principles. Watch generations of humanists work to turn those principles into dogma. Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Chris Hitchens, soon to be "Titans!" in the minds of future humanists.
God provides nothing to investigate.
I think that when you see this, you may change your mind. This female shows love, affection and friendship with her friend. Her actions in other situations show a similar sophistication. BTW, we started wearing clothes because we moved from Africa to Europe and Asia. They are a lot colder than Africa. Many cultures used to drink blood, and some still do, we of course consume it when we eat meat.
People once believed in fairies and leprechauns. Perhaps some still do. Christians (or any religion) that said those beliefs or mythological creatures are false ridicules them. What makes Christian (or jewish) belief any more valid or true than any other such belief? Christians can't even prove their god exists. So the comparison is apt.
How sad that you feel so threatened by humanists. With a hint of paranoia thrown in too.
Do not be sad, Gordy. /s
Is TAP ridiculing Secularists, Sandy? Disingenuous.
I'm not.
TAP (and you) obviously believe that it's insulting to compare your deity with leprechauns, fairies, and the like. Why? Because he (and you) consider belief in the existence of those things ridiculous. That is definitely ridiculing those beliefs. You and he seem to think that your non-provable beliefs deserve more respect than others' non-provable beliefs, which is hypocritical.
I will note that TAP has not doubled down on the hypocrisy, nor has he ridiculed nonbelievers.
You have.
You equate lack of belief in a concept you can't support with lack of understanding, which is an insult to those who are rational enough to need evidence before believing. Or you equate it with a closed mind, while yours remains equally closed to other beliefs. For example, why aren't you worshiping Zeus, again, if you claim that finding cities mentioned in Greek mythology proves Greek mythology to be true? Is it because your mind is closed?
"God did it" is the superstitious man's explanation for how things work, and the powerful man's method of manipulating other men.
How is Skrekk putting anyone down? He's simply stating a fact.
But only if it is a good thing. Several years ago on NV, right after a tornado swept though Oklahoma killing 26 kids, (I believe it was 26?), there was a story on NBC news about it. A poster was saying that he, "thanked God", there were not more victims. I asked the simple question, "Why did God create the tornado in the first place?" The answer? "God didn't create the tornado, but God stopped it."
.
It must be nice to be able to give "God", credit for literally every situation, no matter how horrific. That's some next level spin/blind devotion.
Yeah, "god stopped it." But only after 26 kids died. God needs to work on his timing.
No, you have people like Kirk Cameron who say god sends hurricanes.
And you have a world filled with matter constantly creating wonder and extremes all around you. Ultimately, the mind that has been humbled realizes there are issues and matters in life beyond human or animal control. In our own lives we call out in those moments. . . to the wind, sky, or stars, for help, for fortitude, for understanding. And, when a "still small voice" returns in response we recognize an approval that had not come otherwise. . . .
I think we are all well aware that there are situations beyond our control. That doesn't mean we call out to anybody.
Sandy, it's okay. We know now that you would not call out. I quote myself:
Some of us are just able to cope, I guess. I don't see that as a bad thing.
Coping is a good thing. We are coping just fine too. Never doubt it.
Also, in a strange bit of one-sided symbiotic relationship, believers give meaning to a humanist days and nights, yes? This so-called "relationship" would flow a lot easier into the believers without the militant secularist act. I've read that humanists are supposed to approach others with politeness. Who pulled the rug out from under the gentle secularist act?
Don't flatter yourself.
I've read that humanists are supposed to approach others with politeness.
I know that you like to read disagreement with you on matters of religion as rude, but it's not. If it were, you'd be the one who's rude to nonbelievers and believers of other religions, yes? Or do the same rules of etiquette not apply to you?
Yes, your point?
of course there are things beyond our control. no one is suggesting otherwise.
Speak for yourself.
And some of us recognize hearing voices is a sign of a psychological condition.
And yet you are. . . still here. Clicking and being all "anti-religiousey." The ant-religious disagreements posting are not disturbing. It is the tone, militancy, and out-right pulling the whole room down in Trump-fashion that is quite alarming. It would be anywhere it happens.
Three words for you: Militant secularist propaganda. The phrase, "still small voice" has meaning to believers. Sorry, a secularist misunderstands the lingo.
You seem to want your superstitions given special status rather than being treated as the Bronze-age mythology they actually are.
Three words for you: typical Christian paranoia.
And hearing voices is still a sign of a psychological condition.
No, we understand delusions just fine.
I want what you want: Space in the marketplace. Moreover Shrekk, I and other believers will continue to have space in the marketplace. Spirituality is a dimension that militant outbursts can not breach. Atheist have no doctrine of their own, so you seek out religion to molest. We are your boogeyman. Are you 'scared'?
Concerned would be a better term. Christianity has always been the # 1 threat to liberty and civil rights in this country, and we still seem to be fighting the same battles for the secular government which we were promised.
Apparently, you do not know or appreciate your role in a secularist 'ring' of activism? Or, are you being coy?
Yawn. Well this discussion proceeded with routine activists disruptions. . . . Moving on.
Howdy my Friend!
I see that you have taken on yet another very tough subject. I wonder.....does anyone know why bad things happen to good people? Moreover, how a Loving God could allow such things to happen.....Is there are higher purpose for these things? Could it be due to any combination of the following?
I don't know the answer.
But who here fully understands God's plan and full purpose for us?
Yet many good things happen to very bad people, only the good die young. Visit a childrens cancer ward and tell me again about the wonderful invisible loving being that makes you feel so good. Apparently they are not worthy of the attention.
Mankind chose the path. This is not what God wanted for us.....He gave mankind Free Will.
If there was a god, there would be no such thing as free will.
What makes you come to that conclusion?
Explorerdog! We are surrounded on every side in this life from cradle to grave with the nearness of death. The 'joy'of the Lord is in the presence of God: All live. There is no death in God only life, and no darkness only light.
Easy room.
Simple logic: if god is omnipotent and omniscient, then that negates the possibility of free will.
How do you figure that? Does that make God incapable of giving you that privilege?
If God is omniscient, then he already knew at the time that he created us exactly what we were going to do, down to the smallest detail. So our actions were predetermined at the time of our creation, forestalling free will.
That's just it, there is no such privilege. The "choices" we make are known to god in advance. There is nothing we can do to alter those choices. Unless of course, god is not omniscient. What we consider "free will" from our perspective is just an illusion.
Just because he knows what you are going to do......doesn't mean that you didn't make the decision. He just knows the decision you will make. He doesn't determine your decision.......He only knows what you will do of your own Free Will. I know what some people will do before they do it.....and I'm not even God.....Moreover, I didn't necessarily make them do it.
If my decisions, and by extension, the outcomes is known ahead of time, then it is not free will. If it's already known in advance, then there is no way I can make any other different decision.
If god already knows, then that means I'm already predetermined to do it.
God knows us so well that he knows the decisions we will Freely make in the future. For instance......I'm sure that you have correctly predicted someone doing something before they actually did it......You correctly predicted their behavior because you know that person very well.....Imagine if you knew everything about that person and your intelligence was a million times greater than Einstein....Now imagine a God that knows us to an infinite degree.....and his intelligence has no limitation.
That doesn't actually refute anything I said. If anything, it only supports it. If god knows us, he knows what we're going to choose, long before we evendors exist. So we are incapable of choosing anything other than what god knows we'll choose. We cannot surprise him by choosing something different than he knew we would choose. So whole it may seem like we have s choice, there really is no choice. Choice or free will is an illusion.
He just knows what we will choose to do. Our decision is independent of God....If we didn't have Free Will......We would still be living in the Garden of Eden. If we only did God's will......we wouldn't sin. Sinning isn't God's will....it's our own will....our free will
But we didn't create those people already knowing what they'd do.
Howdy, long time no see! Welcome my brother!
Note the mentions and placement of the world, "hope" here. The world, and the "children" both engage in "groans" as we struggle to develop from slavery to our inner desires into freedom (glory) as spiritual children. The process continues, and so does the need for perseverance (patience) . . . .
Christians are to be set apart from the world. We are not to live like the unbelieving world. Far too many live worldly lives rather than living as disciples of Christ. Those who claim to follow Jesus as Lord and Savior must choose either Jesus, this world and its ruler Satan.
John 17:14-15 I have given them Your word; and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one.
Then he spoke to them all. “If anyone wants to follow in my footsteps, he must give up all right to himself, carry his cross every day and keep close behind me. For the man who wants to save his life will lose it, but the man who loses his life for my sake will save it. For what is the use of a man gaining the whole world if he loses or forfeits his own soul? Luke 9:23-25 Phillips NTTranslations
Therefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and rest your hope fully upon the grace that is to be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ; as obedient children, not conforming yourselves to the former lusts, as in your ignorance; but as He who called you is holy, you also be holy in all your conduct, because it is written, “Be holy, for I am holy. 1 Peter 1:13-16
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love Ephesians 1:4
Since everything around us is going to be destroyed like this, what holy and godly lives you should live, looking forward to the day of God and hurrying it along. On that day, he will set the heavens on fire, and the elements will melt away in the flames. But we are looking forward to the new heavens and new earth he has promised, a world filled with God’s righteousness.
And so, dear friends, while you are waiting for these things to happen, make every effort to be found living peaceful lives that are pure and blameless in his sight.
2Peter 3:11-14
Matthew 7:21-23 “Not everyone who calls out to me, ‘Lord! Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. On judgment day many will say to me, ‘Lord! Lord! We prophesied in your name and cast out demons in your name and performed many miracles in your name.’ But I will reply, ‘I never knew you. Get away from me, you who break God’s laws.’
Add to this the Constitution which promises all its citizens freedoms and privileges.
Now will you share with me what our Christian living will look and feel like in a constitutional republic? Have you considered it?
There is no conflict if the government actually follows the Constitution. Unfortunately that hasn't been the case for the past 80 plus years
* “In the United States the sovereign authority is religious … There is no country in the whole world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence than in America . . . America is still the place where the Christian religion has kept the greatest real power over men’s souls; and nothing better demonstrates how useful and natural it is to man, since the country where it now has the widest sway is both the most enlightened and the freest.” ~Alexis de Tocqueville, (from a two-part work, “Democracy in America,” 1835; 1840)
John Jay, Constitutional Framer and First Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, letter to John Murray, a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania, October 12, 1816
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers
The makers of our Constitution ... conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man." -- Justice Louis Brandeis, Olmstead v. United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438, 478
“The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom.” – Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
Including the right to be let alone by those who would use government to force their religion on others.
Straw man argument. While there may some fringe nuts with those beliefs, they are contrary to Christian teachings. You conflate free exercise with compulsion
Straw man argument. While there may some fringe nuts with those beliefs, they are contrary to Christian teachings. You conflate free exercise with compulsion
So, nobody has ever attempted to deny same-sex couples the right to marry on the basis of religion? It was legal nationwide prior to 2015?
Nobody ever tried to bring prayer or religion into public schools?
History does not agree with you.
Just read your message and I am not yet following your train of thought. Can you elaborate, please?
I agree (again). Our government.s should not be used to compel people to act in distinct religious constructs. Emphatically.
To me this discussion hasn't turned into a discussion about if God exists or not.....and it isn't about the original topic.....It has brought to my view a plain hatred that exists by some against Christians and in some cases anyone of Faith.
If we choose not to believe that we are decedents of Rocks.....then prove me wrong...but have the common decency to be respectful about it....Otherwise, you accomplish absolutely nothing except incite hatred and misery.
God is Love......Love exists.....therefore God Exists!
A flawed conclusion based on an assumption. And love is just a biochemical reaction in the brain.
Ok....let's try a different approach.....
Do people .....Typically, openly state that they saw something that...claiming their account could get them killed......and actually die for it?
Do you think that the Twelve Disciples had some kind of motivation to fabricate the Miracles of Jesus Christ? What do you think motivated them to do this to the point of suffering and dying for it? Were they all Crazy? Brainwashed? What is your explanation.
David Koresh's followers suffered, too.
As did Jim Jones'.
So David Koresh and Jim Jones must have been telling the truth, right?
Did these people bring anyone back from the dead? Did they perform miracles like making the blind see? The apostles died believing the miracles that they actually witnessed. Did these two cult leaders deliver on their word?
Can we be sure that Jesus did, from what were, at best, second-hand accounts?
Not really.
Apparently, some do. It's stupid. But some do. I guess that's what religious belief will do to the mind.
Crazy, high, brainwashed, idiots, con artists, all of the above, take your pick. I don't care to speculate on their motivations.
No such things as miracles. What did they "witness" exactly? "Witness" accounts are highly subjective, anecdotal, and dubious to say the least. "Miracle" is just a word people use to explain the occurrence of something fortuitous they do not understand.
Moses got 10 commandments written in stone, so why didn't God's only begotten son come with something that impressive
Moses got 10 commandments written in stone, so why didn't God's only begotten son come with something that impressive
For someone demanding to be acknowledged, god sure was stingy with the evidence, wasn't he?
You claim that the apostles must have been crazy or something. Do you have any writings that would indicate that they didn't see what they claim?......I doubt it......On the other hand, I have 4 peoples accounts that match up amazingly well.
BTW.....Sweet Car.....
I would argue that Jesus's miracles outshines Moses by a long shot.
There's no proof substantiating whatever they saw. Only hearsay.
As I said, eyewitness accounts is notoriously unreliable.
Thanks, I like the Clint picture too
Religion just doesn't make sense to me, never did. There is not enough there to fill in gaps and it all happened a long time ago. Seems like a lot is old stories that got written down and edited to suit by Popes, Kings, councils and others, In retelling stories people sometimes make them a little more interesting, Did Gutenberg get it right when he printed it?
it didn't make sense when I was 6
4 eyewitness accounts that are amazingly similar....even after 2 thousand years of Translation and Copying. The text has changed very little in meaning from todays Bible to the most ancient scrolls and tablets. Even with todays DNA technology......... an Eyewitness account is considered valuable evidence.
Such accounts are still only hearsay and lack any substance. It's just stories being passed on and around.
I saw Elvis. That means Elvis is alive. So according to you, my "eyewitness account" is valid and proves Elvis is alive, right? BTW, eyewitness accounts is only considered valid if it can be substantiated. Otherwise, it's nothing more than a 'he said, she said' scenario. Cross examination can often expose the flaws and errors of such accounts.
Given that the stories were passed verbally from generation to generation for about a century then written, translated, re-translated, edited, omitted and added, the "eyewitness accounts" really can't hold that much value. We've all played "Telephone" as kids, we all know how embellishments and omissions happen in oral story telling.
Yep, and, during the same period of time it was considered OK to put lead in eating utensils and, drinking cups, lead poisoning does amazing things to the mind.
There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus. NONE. There is hearsay.
Yup. Even the gospels were written by men who never actually met him, based on accounts they'd heard from others.
That wouldn't be admissible evidence in court.
The people, who believe in Christianity, don't seem to know or understand the origins of Christianity or other religions throughout history.
Scientology is a newly created religion based on science fiction from the little I know about it. It may disappear in a few decades because the vast majority of people who are alive today can't see any basis for believing in it.
I feel the myth of Jesus' miracles and resurrection were the same during the time that it supposedly happened. There were no eyewitness accounts - only hearsay. People, who were alive at time, easily dismissed the stories as tall tales. The religion would have probably faded away had it not been spread at the point of Constantine's sword. Christianity was spread with force - not love.
It is the same today as Christian groups try to force their religious doctrine into government law in order to force everyone to live by their religious doctrine.
Eyewitness accounts rank among the most unreliable of all types of evidence.
I agree when it pertains to a single event......However, we are talking about a very large list of Miracles and accounts.
none of which has any objective verification or support. It's all because "someone said so."
In a book filled with a few facts and a lot of myths.
What would you consider as proof from something that happened 2000 years ago? More books? More Scrolls? More Tablets? Paintings? Egyptian Hieroglyphs? Is there any historical record from that time that is acceptable to be considered fact?......and if so why would that source be considered fact and the Bible is not?
How are you so certain that they are myths?
Something objective for starters would be nice. But what makes the bible acceptable as fact? Given that it's been edited, translated, revised, open to interpretation, contradictory, some parts that are flat out discredited by actual science, ect., its veracity is highly suspect at best. Why would anyone accept such content to be factual or true? Especially given its supernatural claims for which there is not one shred of evidence to substantiate it?
How are you certain they are not? I'm sure you consider the Greek gods to be mythical. What makes the biblical god any less so?
Modern science that shrinks the "truth" of the Bible cinched it for me.
However, I was never comfortable with the thought of a god that would only make itself known to a few people and then drown everyone for not following the directives of their fellow mortal man. How would a person know whether a person was a god's spokesman or just insane?
That is just cruel.
The logistics of the Ark story never made sense. Also, there is no way that a handful of people are capable of feeding all of the animals and cleaning up after them on a boat. Not to mention, the sickness and death that would be a result of having so many animals in close quarters without proper sanitation, proper ventilation and exercise. Back to feeding the animals. Feed for every critter on earth - seriously?
Then we have the matter of a man being swallowed by a fish and surviving. Absurd.
Of course, there is the matter on why a god would "need" anything or have human emotions. Yahweh created dogs before man, but then created man to act as Yahweh's pets. I do mean pets because if we are too ignorant to understand Yahweh and we are to try to figure out his wishes / commands in order to his bidding, it is how we treat dogs.
The premise that mankind was created to keep a god company is ridiculous. If Yahweh wanted company, then he would have created contemporaries who would be able to converse on a god's level. Mankind isn't even capable of obeying the most basic of orders to leave the one forbidden fruit tree in paradise unmolested.
Yahweh's creation myth is just one of countless other creation myths.
Reading the history of El, Yahweh and associated religions makes Yahweh just another mythical god worshipped by ancient men. I'm citing Wiki because it is after midnight and I have things that need done tomorrow so I don't want to spend hours googling for various sources.
Love for a Spirit?! What kind of natural reaction is that?
Possibly a delusional one. But it's still a matter of the mind. It's all in the brain.
I always found The Jackel to be a great source for information about the gods who preceded Yahweh.
Gordy you seem very intelligent. Just like the character that you are using in your avatar.......but like the character spock.....his absolute reliance on logic to solve problems was a disability at times. I hope you don't take that as a personal attack.....it's not meant to be.....I respect you very much and find debating you a huge challenge......Live Long and Prosper my Friend!
As do I. I wish he were here.
Thank you.
I try.
Logic is often the best way to solve problems. Otherwise, emotional solutions can affect reasoning and rational judgement. it's like if Stephen Hawking didn't use logic and reasoning when trying to solve the mysteries of the universe.
Not at all.
I appreciate that.
Thank you.
I'll take that as a compliment. After all, life gets a little boring without a challenge.
Peace and long life.
Sandy, the facts are you are not sure of any positive statement of fact about Jesus. It all bears down on intent here. You do not take a positive outlook on spirituality or its associates in any fashion.
Very few "statements of fact" can be made about Jesus. There are even questions about when he was born and when he died.
You do not take a positive outlook on spirituality or its associates in any fashion.
I have no reason to do so.
N o one who can be taken seriously considered the Gospels, "Telephone" or "Chinese Whispers." Gordy is fishing for any excuse, and many follow his lead, not to agree with, or acceptance of this message.
Nobody can be taken seriously who thinks that stories handed down orally over time don't get changed in the retelling.
So why is there a King James and Revised Standard Bible? Why did it need to be revised and made standard if _".... compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses ...." ? How do we know it was revised correctly?
I definitely can not take your recent accounting seriously. Militant secularists imply there is not a negative humanist strategy, set of tactics, and media campaign against Believers today. It is a bald-faced lie. Just watch the humanists who throw out statistics on the numbers of "Nones" (Not believers, as they are called ) in this country.
My accounting? What? Well, I did just file a quarterly tax return, so you're saying it's wrong? Well, shit.
Militant secularists
How is requiring proof before I believe in your god (or any god), and keeping those believers who would force their beliefs on the rest of us from doing so, being a "militant secularist"? I've never demanded that anybody give up their religion. Never lobbied for a ban on pork substitutes, as I've stated elsewhere. Hell, I even have several copies of the Bible on my bookshelves.
If I'm a "militant secularist", then you're a "militant anti-Odinist".
You don't. But on the other-hand, you do not know that any ancient document you read is transliterated to the letter. That never stops acceptance of anything Socrates or Aristotle, Plato, and the like are considered to have spoken in their lifetimes.
Ain't nobody trying to pass them off as the Word of the Lord or the Gospel Truth
Really? I doubt if there are 10 people in my entire county who could give one quote from any of them.
However, if a sect of Socratians elevated Socrates to god status and demanded that we live by the words of Socrates then I can guarantee that those words would come under endless scrutiny, debate and then fighting over what was the "real" meaning.
I don't know Luke or why I would want to take his word for anything or if those are even Luke's words.
I do not know anyone who knows Luke. I do know people who have been indoctrinated to believe that every word in the Bible was authorized by Yahweh. However, since I know that Yahweh is a myth then I figure that Luke may have been a fantasy author in his lifetime.
We can be fairly sure that there have been some errors in either their transcription, translation, or both. And even accurate translations don't alway capture connotations - some words or phrases in one language don't have a direct translation in another that captures the entire meaning conveyed.
But in the case of Plato and Aristotle, we have transcriptions and translations of their written work - not something somebody heard somebody else say they said, then transcribed and translated a few times. In the case of Socrates, we have first-hand accounts of his words from his students, rather than second-hand, as with accounts of Jesus.
And as charger said, nobody is trying to force anybody to live by the words of Plato.
The concern is 'telephoning' of ancient words handed down. Who questions the transmission method of Socrates words and ideology down through the ages? Not you.
I don't know. Google it and see if someone has stats on this if you really need to know about how scholars of Socrates feel about how his words have been translated.
I have never had one person knock on my door or send me pamphlets or try to indoctrinate me into the religion of Socrates. If it ever happens, that the cult of Socrates rises to enough prominence in society to have an impact on my life then I will investigate the matter further.
In the meantime, I will continue to ignore the cult of Socrates and concentrate on matters that do have an impact on my society and my government.
My brother, you are welcome to turn the conversation back to the original topic. I support this immediately. (-:
There are so many posts it's hard to keep track of it all.....
Ahh! Here is a helpful solution:
1. At the top right, look for your membership name.
2. Use dropdown (there) and go to "Account Settings."
3. Across the menus up top, click on, "Notifications."
4. In notifications, the first in the list may be, "Discussion Updated."
5. 'Dot' Send Private Note
6. 'Dot' some of the many choices there. Caution! You could overflow your email box using that option to receive updates!
7. Return to regular use of the service. Should you want to know what is happening on a discussion you are participating in, go to: "True American Pat" and click on "Private Notes."
Brother, if you need any further assistance ask in the room or 'hit me up' on Chat Now!
Thank you very much my Brother! That will be very helpful!
Hard to follow this conversation. All I can say is this Nashville Statement has nothing to do with God or Jesus, its is all about organized religion misinterpreting for their own benefit. Religion is not representing the spiritual values they were meant to encourage in people. These pronouncements about what is moral about sexual issues are all man made. Usually pertaining to keeping women under control especially (hence all the sex stuff). Right now they have no moral authority at all.
Wow just read through all this gobbledygook.... And there is only one truth I can come up with....
Any one demanding proof of something is only demanding his own way...
To a true believer there is no need for proof.
To a true non-believer there is no proof....
For the true believer go in faith my friend
For the true non-believer also go in faith....
Competing faiths will never cross, they always conflict.
So the real issue is why are you all judging each other?
maybe, each side wants to keep other from forcing it's way on the them.
Of course there are actually 3 sides, not two.
The majority here consists of 2 sides, both of which are sure that they're right. And they spend hours obsessively proving that they know it all,and that the other side is wrong. (These people really need to get a life!!!)
Those that are like this, on both sides of any argument, comprise the two larger groups. They are on opposing sides of any argument, but these two groups are really like Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum.
Then there is a third, much smaller group-- those that are intelligent enough to realize that they do not, in fact, "know it all"-- and are open to new ideas! Sadly, these folks are almost always a tiny minority on Internet discussion sites.
Where are the "new ideas"?
How about a cage fight between Yahweh and Quetzalcoatl? The one who wins is thus proven to be the One True Imaginary Friend.
Throw in Thor and the Flying Spaghetti Monster too. Maybe other gods as well? It can be a battle Royale of gods. Or we can pit them against each other tournament style? Winner take all. Ladies and gentlemen, place your bets.
We'd have to set it up like a fantasy football league, but the superbowl would be between the winners of the monotheist cults and the polytheist cults.
My bet is the animists win by default.
I'm not afraid to admit, I don't have any idea what will happen when this physical body decides to check out. I back "intelligent design" but I have no idea who is right about it, I'm kinda hoping it's the Buddhists and reincarnation.
Can I put 4 Bitcoin on the FSM and 3 Bitcoin on Cthulhu? ! Boitchoineach on Thor and Shiva. Buddha is a pacifist or I'd be betting on him.
What do you know about Buddhists and reincarnation?
You might want to do some research because the evil or goodness that you did in this life will be a factor in how you are reincarnated into the next.
I believe that regardless of what person believes that people should work on themselves first and foremost and quit trying to control / guilt / torment others.
Honestly? I'm a pretty good person, for instance, when I go out and clean up beer bottles from the night before, and there is a live moth in one, I will slowly fill the bottle with water in order to get the moth out alive...
As for all the shit I've talked on the vine, well, the God in charge knows when I was serious, or just fucking with someone.
Why would a god approve of "just fucking with someone"?
If you were a follower of Yeshua then you have broken the Golden Rule at the very least.
If you were a Buddhist, then your disrespect would have harmed others and been returned to you as harmful energy.
I am very happy to hear your opinion on religion! I know you study it so much!!
I have studied various religions mainly because I could not understand how a Creator would only reveal itself to one sect of its creations and condemn the remainder to Hell. I know that human parents have a favorite child or children, but for a perfect god to do it is illogical. That never sat well with me how a loving god could be that cruel. So I looked for god in other religions and found some that seemed far more enlightened than the one that I had been raised to believe in.
The religion I am best acquainted with is Christianity because I was raised in the Bible Belt. I attended many different Christian sects with family and friends for decades. I have been to the Church of Christ, the Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Baptist Church, the Pentecostal Church and even the Mormon Church.
A question which may well be asked of those who wrote or signed the linked letter.
Belief and faith are emotional decisions instead of based on facts. You have the constitutional right to believe in religion/god as you choose but your belief isn't based on empirical fact. I also understand that discussing god to many believers is insulting and/or emotionally threatening.
If a god existed then we could prove it. The fact that there isn't any proof and the gap that god might exist in is becoming smaller and smaller as our knowledge of the universe around us increases.
I am mentally composing an idea for a thread about why people believe in god and what god means to them, but I want that thread to be a sincere discussion of belief instead of a troll or a feces tossing marathon.
Hi guys! Carry on today please, as I will be out of town. Back Wednesday night! Peace out for now!
E.A The Falsehood about " There were no Witnesses of Jesus existence "
1. Mark 6:30-44 , Matthew 14:13-21, Luke 9:16 " Jesus feeds thousand. Who where these folk did they have relatives and Friends?
Did they have Enemies, who where they and what did they do?
2.The Enemies, where they part of the Sanhedrin? Link 1 Link 2 " Matthew 26:57 states that Jesus was taken to the house of Caiaphas the High Priest, where the scribes and the elders were gathered together." and " Jesus is sent from Annas to Caiaphas the high priest, and 18:28 states that, in the morning, Jesus was led from Caiaphas to Pontius Pilate in the Praetorium.[9][10][11]"
3. So we now have the Sanhedrin, and they number a few, and they now call upon Pontius, and he is a Roman, and he asks for Directive from ROME, Wait, what is ROME?
Rome is the " Seat of Government for a World Power of the Times " so then the Existence of Jesus Christ " is known ALL the way up to the " World Power of the Time " now who coins the name " Christians " and what do Historians tell us about it?
4. Archaeology, are then ANY archaeological Finds in ANY museums? in One, in Two, what do they show about this " Non Existent " or so some will wish " non existent entitle "
5. In Museums Around the world there is evidence to probe WHOM?
a) Alexander the Great
b) Caligula
c) Napoleon
d) Jesus Christ
6. So in effect how MANY knew about Jesus First Hand, and by Being direct Descendants to an eye witness?
Legal Documents Proving the Person
In
Judea
Damascus
Rome
7. So what does this indicate to all those that Claim " No Evidence " to the existence of " Jesus Christ "?
Caligula
Details the graphic and shocking, yet undeniably tragic story of Rome's most infamous Caesar, Gaius Germanicus Caligula.
Fiction is written with mention of real historical people. So what? There are no records mentioning Jesus outside of the Bible.
E.A Thank you, you have made it crystal clear as to how well informed you are in History, Archaeology, Government institution, Law Etc:
Could there have been a Jew named Yeshua? Certainly. It was a very popular name.
Did Yeshua walk on water, raise people from the dead and multiply food? No.
Was there a man name Yeshua crucified? Could have been. Did he rise from the grave? No.
Were Christians fed to the lions in the coliseum? No. It is more propaganda.
All good fiction has an element of reality.
furthermore....
E.A See 23 Eagle Averro
Repeating adnuseum changes Nothing!
Ad nauseam
Ad nauseam - Wikipedia
Don't be obtuse. Those came from the Bible. There are no first-hand accounts of Jesus by people who lived during the same years as Jesus who mentions him. Any mention of Jesus comes from after the fact. The gospels were written 2-3 generations after the fact.
The fact that we know who the Roman emperors and Jewish authorities were, doesn't prove that Jesus lived.
For someone who never existed or was just a lowly carpenter......He sure has had a huge enduring impact on the world. He has uncountable followers all across the world that claim to have a active relationship with him. They testify of his interaction in their lives. Could all of these things be made up......of course.....but after 2000 years nobody has been able to Prove that he never existed. At what point does the Bible become an accepted artifact of actual History?
When we lose knowledge of the science that has proven that at no time was our species limited to two beings, so Adam and Eve are impossible. Without Adam, Eve, talking snake and forbidden fruit, there is no original sin and no need to be saved by a creator sacrificing itself in order to save its creations from the creator.
It is a myth - based on even older myths.
We would also have to purge most scientific knowledge we have today and regress back to the days of spreading and enforcing the myth via oppression, torture, and lethal weapons.
Some sects of Christianity are testing trying to survive by changing their message that the Bible is the work and word of God to simply "God loves us" and please ignore the atrocities committed in His name because He really did not approve....plus don't judge ancient men because they lived in different times.
Other sects of Christianity are even becoming liberal with the message of forgiveness and non-judging. They are more concerned with filling their pews and bank accounts in the here and now than they are worried about preaching the true word of their god.
And then there are the fundamentalists and Young Earthers who screw the somewhat liberal Christian sects up by continually playing domination and submission games with our society and government. And it is these people that truly make the rest of us, outside of fundamentalist Christian religion, sit up and take notice of the hypocrisy of the Christian message of "Do unto others as you have them do unto you".
We are not storming churches or denying anyone the right to worship as they see fit. In fact, the only people demanding special treatment are the fundamentalists and their ilk. Their goal is to dominate and conquer others just as their brethren have done throughout history. This cannot and will not be tolerated. Our government is secular and will remain secular. There is no reason to be fighting the crusades within or outside of US borders. It is not the duty of US armies to protect Christians in other countries or to bring other countries under so-called Christian control.
An interesting read that refutes the notion that Science has proven we couldn't have come from 2 Parents.
A read that comes from a religiously based and biased source. No credibility there!
E.A
And that is from someone that claims to have read and understood " Mitochondrial Eve " and to know the Basics about " Single cell evolution " which is the bases of ALL evolution, to assume that the Miracle of Multiple Spontaneous Cells generations is Laughable in ALL sciences!!!
You must be confused. I've made no assumptions.
Answers in Genesis is Ken Ham's website. The guy who thinks that dinosaurs were on the ark. Or who pretends to, so long as it suits his wallet.
3. So we now have the Sanhedrin, and they number a few, and they now call upon Pontius, and he is a Roman, and he asks for Directive from ROME, Wait, what is ROME?
Rome is the " Seat of Government for a World Power of the Times " so then the Existence of Jesus Christ " is known ALL the way up to the " World Power of the Time " now who coins the name " Christians " and what do Historians tell us about it?
EA, it has been written that Captain America and, the Justice League fought in WWII and, met FDR, Hitler and, most of Hitler's henchmen, does that mean that they are real people? No, of course not, however, we know that WWII happened and, that Hitler, FDR and, Hitler's henchmen existed, it doesn't mean that Captain America or, the Justice League existed.
But how do we know they didn't?
Where's the proof that Captain America or the Justice League did not exist?
What a discussion this has been. I would like to say the following to everyone that has participated in this discussion.
I respect your views and your Right to Believe or not to believe in God.
I think it is wrong for people to push Religion onto others who don't want to participate.
I think is is wrong for non believers to mock or try to belittle believers.
If I have offended anyone for their beliefs ......I am truly Sorry.
The debate on the existence of a Creator or God has raged on for Centuries.....and I have no doubt will continue until Jesus Returns (My Belief)......I don't think you are stupid for not believing.....Please don't insinuate that Believers are.
If superstitious folks would keep their cult and their sharia laws in their own life where they belong there'd be no reason to mock them.
I agree with your summation but, I have to say this to you, I agree in part with what has been said on here about Christians forcing their beliefs on others, especially when it comes to some sects within the Christian religion, when people show up at my front door trying to get me to join their church or, believe in their god it is something that I have to draw a line for, and, then when some Christians get power in the government and, then try to push the legislature to change the laws to something that was believed thousands of years ago in total contrast to the Constitution and, science I have to draw the line again. This is not Israel two thousand years ago, it is not Rome and, it is not the Middle Ages or, the Dark Ages it is the twenty first century and, it is the United States of America, we have a Constitution that separates religion from the government, no Sharia law, Christian or, Muslim is allowed, we have century's of science that refute much of what was believed in the days of the Bible, it is time to give up some of the beliefs in the Bible and, get a fucking clue. You want to talk to me about the Bible in a philosophical way, fine, I will do that but, don't try to "convert" me to your religion, I already have one.
I like your style
Thank You. Likewise.
INTERLUDE (BREATHING SPACE.)
Thank you to all the serious commenters on this thread! I will lock it now and move on to new topic!