Let’s talk about scale
Can we talk about scale?
Let’s let a period (.) represent one thousand years. The following would then be representative of the amount of time that has elapsed since the times of the Jesus character:
..
This would be the approximate age of man and the universe, according to evangelicals:
......
Science reveals that Cro-Magnon man dates back about this far:
.............................................
The earliest biped human ancestors diverged from their chimp relatives about this long ago:
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
Scientifically, the earth itself is thought to be that amount times about 70 (12/27 correction: about 700). The universe is thought to be about three times that amount.
And yet those who authored mainstream religious doctrines, who clearly had no concept of evolution, and who had no evidence to consider in the question of the origins of mankind, wanted adherents to believe that man was created in their god’s image from dirt and that the world was created for the express purposes of serving man.
Is there really any point in comparing mainstream religions to determine which one might be most accurate or plausible? They all insist that creation occurred a few periods ago, went straight to sentient humans, and we all know that to be wildly inaccurate - so who cares what they claim? Their doctrines are ignorant of what today is known to be true.
Tags
Who is online
98 visitors
That pretty much sums it all up. LOL!
One of our "hold-outs", eh? Or would that be "missing link"???
That was at the Reason Rally in Washington DC, 2012. Great costume.
They all insist that creation occurred a few periods ago, went straight to sentient humans, and we all know that to be wildly inaccurate - .....
"We all" don't know anything in common. About 6 billion people in the world believe in some kind of, or sort of beliefs, the other billion are Secular, Nonreligious, Agnostic or Atheist .
.... so who cares what they claim? Their doctrines are ignorant of what today is known to be true.
Whoa, slow down there Hal. I care what they claim. They have beliefs, that some of them will die for, and for the most part, there is no way to convince many them that they are wrong. Also, we need to keep in mind that they outnumber us by 6 to 1.
Your position, which aligns with the evolutionist beliefs, are not "known to be true". Evolutionism, to most people, is only a "theory". For me it is a damn good theory and I challenge some one to offer any evidence they have to disprove Darwin.
On the other hand I also challenge any one to offer any proof there is a God. (my bet is on the evolutionist) But either way, there is no proof.
Their "doctrines" are beliefs, and our "beliefs" are theories.
Evolution is a theory on par with the theory of gravity.
I agree. Further, evolution is arguably better explained than gravity. We still do not understand how gravity actually works - the graviton particle remains purely hypothetical.
Is there really any point in comparing mainstream religions to determine which one might be most accurate or plausible?
That was not the purpose of my article.
-
-
Overheard: Trump isn't hard to predict. In any given situation, just ask yourself, "What would be the total dick move be?" and you'll be right most of the time.
In essence it was. The insistence that one religion is superior to others is not only blatant in their adherents, it is axiomatic in their written doctrines. It could only follow that eternal dispositions are strictly a function of what religion the individual has embraced. If you’re looking for Muslims to say that Jews and Christians will be accepted into their version of heaven, and vice versa, then you are ignoring the very definitions of the religions themselves.
You missed the point.
-
-
Overheard: Trump isn't hard to predict. In any given situation, just ask yourself, "What would be the total dick move be?" and you'll be right most of the time.
I hate the constant political infighting around here so gotta admit I prefer Hals point over yours. Sorry
You have convinced me. I have no doubt you came from monkeys.
Not only do we share a common ancestor with the other great apes [yes, humans are a TYPE of ape] we even share a common ancestor with the pine trees! Modern genetic knowledge has conclusively proven that ALL living things are interrelated. We are part of the earth's biosphere, period, and there is no evidence whatsoever, that we enjoy any kind of dual existence.
Gakina Awiiya (we are all related) a very old Anishinaabe belief.
My cat showed me who the superior being is this morning....
My cat seems to have anal leakage and is definitely not the superior being. I've decided I like dogs a lot more than cats.
The little bastard wouldn't let me sleep at 0330. He forced me to get up so he could go outside
There is always the option of letting him stay outside on a permanent basis. Then we would see who is superior.
and since most urine is 95% water
that next beer may very well have come out the wrong end of T Rex long ago
lol
You have convinced me.
You are incapable of being convinced of anything you don’t already believe.
sure you are. people thought the world was flat. isn't that what "science" told them?
Uh, I think science is what showed them it wasn't flat.
The earliest reliably documented mention of the spherical Earth concept dates from around the 6th century BC when it appeared in ancient Greek philosophy [1] [2] but remained a matter of speculation until the 3rd century BC, when Hellenistic astronomy established the spherical shape of the Earth as a physical given.
Wow, that describes a lot of people here, yourself included.
I learn new things all the time. That is what science is all about. Unfortunately, that is the antithesis of what religion is all about.
Scientifically i'm sure you do and good for you if you do. That's the first step to being and remaining successful. I find too many young people today who think they already have all the answers and thereby limit their own growth. But i doubt you've had many serious philosophical changes in recent time. Few of us do on the things we consider really serious matters. Not once we get older and have developed many of our core beliefs
You are correct in that religion is not scientific at all. Religion requires faith. Generally speaking, Faith has never been and never will be integral to good science. Coming from the scientific community as an educated and practicing engineer i understand an agnostic mentality and tend to lean that way myself but i have never understood those that are so paranoid about their lack of "faith" in something greater than themselves, that they find a need to deride those that do have faith.
I find faith a refreshing change to derived math and science. I tend to agree with Emerson:
“All I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen.”
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
I don't take issue with someone's notion that when they die they are going to experience something incredible in the beyond. I just don't believe that myself. What I do take issue with is those who insist that they already know what to expect in such a realm, and that they are living their life in a manner that will compliment that stage, and that certain others are dooming their own fate in such a realm. For the same reason, I have never had an issue with deists, pantheists, agnostics, or those who tend towards Spinoza's or Einstein's concept of intelligent order in the universe. I just don't believe it myself. When any evidence presents itself to support such concepts, I will be a believer. Until then, it hurts no one to simply not have that kind of faith.
That's cool, to each their own. You are the exception to the rule from my experience.
If i had a nickel for every time i had to walk away from a conversation calling me stupid for having faith i'd likely be typing this from a warm island in the Caribbean and not from from the great white north with snow blowing up my rear ....
Concur Hal - suffered a massive cardiac arrest in March 2015 and was "dead" for 'bout five minutes before being resuscitated. At no time during that five minutes did I get to see a light at the end of the hall - hear wonderful voices singing songs of praise - a person in a white robe with a beard reaching out to hold my hand - or win the lottery. In fact, I have no recollection of what occurred during the entire week prior to the arrest nor for the 11 days I was in a medically induced coma nor the remaining 22 days in ICU. So, roughly, I "lost" 40 days of "existence" and got to see/hear/feel no great revelations upon waking up.
Based on my experiences of that time frame and with my spiritual beliefs vice religious beliefs, all I can do is muse over someone trying to tell me just how wonderful it's going to be when we die????? I died and didn't know it. Guess folks don't realize that's how it happens - you don't know you've died (go Bruce Willis).
I had no idea, 1st. Consider this a belated and heartfelt welcome back.
Thank you Hal - seriously appreciated
On the other hand. I passed out for no known reason while typing an email to my niece. My husband found me and put me on our bed. When I came to, I said, "let me die, I want to die"! How did I know that I was dead? Did I want to go back? This has haunted me for six years now. However, I don't remember anything from the time I passed out to waking up. I, also, was out for 5 or 6 mins.
As a result of my experience, two things have stuck in my mind. First is my constant craving for Caliche's Chocolate Malts and the second - impatience - something I never had a problem with before. For some reason, things aren't happening "fast enough" for me - kinda hard to understand. Gotta work on that. Maybe I'm "evolving" to a higher plane?????
Impatience! That is truly interesting. I would like to know the answer to that.
You know, the next morning, I went to the computer and my email was still there, but about 2 inches below the email was.......iH love look
Now, my precious sister had died two weeks previously. Just, maybe, it was her making contact with me. Don't know, but it has left me with the sense that there is something beyond death. An energy!
Only if the temp's above 60
.
You know we NM types - 352 days of sunshine allows for 352 days of good golfing weather and bike riding.
Glad you made it.
Someone asked the question what do you think happens when you die. Since I've been under anesthesia numerous times, I stated that I imagined that it's a lot like that. I went to sleep and didn't experience dreams or anything. I don't remember anything until the nurse forced me to wake up (why do they do that?)
Egyptians believed the earth was flat, based on their science at the time.
Of course science will eventually prove or disprove theories, medicine, etc., constantly changing our opinions and beliefs throughout history.
To say ones mind can't be changed and influenced as stated is absurd.
They do that because they want you to drink that pitiful liquid they're trying to disguise as coffee.
That's why I haven't taken a job at Los Alamos....the snow isn't consistent there anymore.
My brother in law died for 6 minutes. He said he could see everything going on in the room and in other rooms. He was aware that he was dead, and didn't want to be. Then he had the sensation of being sucked in and he was alive again. After a team of docs and psychologist came in and took notes. Apparently they do that to all the near dead for a meta study they are doing.
My opinion is that the after life would commence after someone dies, not when they almost die.
Death is final. No one but possibly Jesus has come back from the dead. imo
If you think it's possible that Jesus came back from the dead, why would it not be possible for certain other people to have done so? Why is Jesus the only possibility?
Maybe Jesus wasn't dead?
Maybe the Jesus described in the bible never existed.
Lazarus?
the "unlikeliness" of Jesus resurrection, if you want to put it like that, does not necessarily correlate into evidence Jesus never existed. Two separate issues.
I disagree. There have been well documented cases of people being D E A D for several minutes and through medical intervention, were revived. When I was a teenager, a girl in a neighboring school hit some ice and her and her car ended up in a river. She couldn't escape and downed. 30 minutes later, she was pulled from the river and revived in a hospital, (and given the hospital, I was truly shocked, anyway...). She did have some disabilities for years afterwards, but managed to get her RN and is still to this day working as a nurse in the very hospital that she was revived in. She isn't a personal friend or anything but it was a small town and every year, she makes the paper as an, "anniversary".
Jesus was crucified and nailed to the cross etc.
If he didn't die, did he have the strength to move the boulder that sealed his burial crypt?
The New Testament says the women found the tomb empty, not that they found Jesus alive.
I suppose from a skeptic's viewpoint you could posit that he never actually died on the cross though.
In modern times we have had people come back from the dead without intervention. The fact is, we don't understand death. Only recently did scientist find out that genes continue to divide even after death for up to 4 days.
Death is final. No one can come back from being dead. If they came back, they weren't dead to begin with. i.m.o.
"...For the skeptic, as usual, things are not so simple. Even the most cold-hearted of skeptics accepts the sincerity of the reports made by individuals who have had near death experiences, and the profound impact of the experience on these individuals cannot be denied. However, a careful examination of even the most convincing NDEs leaves open multiple plausible interpretations.
It is not at all surprising that individuals’ subjective responses to oxygen depletion and the orderly shutting down of internal organs would be highly similar from person to person. And, we must remember that none of these individuals were actually dead . It is now recognized that precise identification of the moment of death is difficult, and just because a pulse and breathing have stopped does not mean that the person is beyond revival. Furthermore, experiences very much like NDEs have been reported by people experiencing migraines or epileptic seizures and by those under the influence of hallucinogenic drugs ; no one attributes these experiences to supernatural or spiritual causes.
In the end, we are left with the tension that is inherent in so many paranormal experiences: vivid subjective experience and intuition versus a rational analysis of data and competing explanations. We should not allow our desire to believe in something to interfere with our ability to critically examine evidence."
Miracle Max advises that folk can be mostly dead and still be revived.
In my 15 years as a paramedic I've brought more than a few folk back from the dead.
I'm not suggesting there is a correlation.
A skeptical point of view is a mentally healthy one. If you're not a skeptic, you're a sucker.
NDEs and OBEs are indeed very real, but there is nothing to suggest they are anything more than natural effects or manifestations of the mind.
You still haven't answered why Jesus is the only possible person to ever have come back from the dead. Even if you buy the whole ridiculous tale [which you seem to] there is no reason to think 'God' could not have brought others back from the dead, perhaps several others.
If you want to believe that others have been brought back from the dead, no one is stopping you.
Lol! You only sound this pathetic when you're trying to justify your god delusion. You are smart and present your view with integrity when it comes to everything else. Obviously, I don't believe people come back from the dead, and you know it. Your post was completely disingenuous. Why do YOU think Jesus may have but no one else could have?
You asked me who else could have come back from the dead. I have no idea. I am guessing no one else. According to the Christian faith, Jesus came back from the dead.
Isn't that what y'all argue about every day?
Maybe the early Christians convinced themselves that he had come back from the dead, or someone in the group thought it was a good selling point for a new religion.
It still comes down to faith. Obviously, if Jesus was the Son of God he could have participated in this 'magical' turn of events.
Personally, I accept it as a matter of faith. I don't give the mechanics of it a lot of thought though.
Wow, STILL not answering. Honestly, JR, talking to you about this stuff is like talking to a right wing dingbat about Donald Trump! I didn't ask you who else could have come back from the dead, I asked you why Jesus is the only possible one. If you believe God brought Jesus back, why could he not have brought others back that we don't know about?
Jesus was crucified and nailed to the cross etc.
If he didn't die, did he have the strength to move the boulder that sealed his burial crypt?
Now these are the kinds of comments that are the most frustrating. When people were crucified in this era, their bodies were left to rot, and eventually became food for the wandering wild dogs. They were not given burial services, much less the ultimate shrine of a burial crypt. A person in his position would never have received such treatment - especially since they had just publicly executed him. Bart Ehrman speaks about this nonsensical detail in his many books of the subject of Jesus.
His total lack of importance is further made obvious by the fact that he wasn't even written about for the next 30 years. Archeologists have unearthed written records of tax receipts and shopping lists from this era, but not a thing about a guy who could perform miracles? His whole story is a farce, yet arguments in his favor routinely rely on details that are wholly at odds with the historical record.
I don't think he really died, either. Except in old age
Well, I've always questioned whether he really died on the cross. It takes days for crucifixion to cause death, primarily because it's the result of suffocation. Granted, he was supposedly nearly beaten to death before nailed on the cross, but he was dead within 3 hours. I call time out here. I think he survived. It was all a grand scheme to start a movement, maybe not a religion, but there ya have it
Good day, Trout! I usually do not present my answers in the manner I am about to do. I offer this as food for thought and will let stand on its own merit:
Question: "Why did blood and water come out of Jesus' side when He was pierced?"
Answer: The Roman flogging or scourging that Jesus endured prior to being crucified normally consisted of 39 lashes, but could have been more ( Mark 15:15 ; John 19:1 ). The whip that was used, called a flagrum, consisted of braided leather thongs with metal balls and pieces of sharp bone woven into or intertwined with the braids. The balls added weight to the whip, causing deep bruising and contusions as the victim was struck. The pieces of bone served to cut into the flesh. As the beating continued, the resulting cuts were so severe that the skeletal muscles, underlying veins, sinews, and bowels of victims were exposed. This beating was so severe that at times victims would not survive it in order to go on to be crucified.
Those who were flogged would often go into hypovolemic shock, a term that refers to low blood volume. In other words, the person would have lost so much blood he would go into shock. The results of this would be
1) The heart would race to pump blood that was not there.
2) The victim would collapse or faint due to low blood pressure.
3) The kidneys would shut down to preserve body fluids.
4) The person would experience extreme thirst as the body desired to replenish lost fluids.
There is evidence from Scripture that Jesus experienced hypovolemic shock as a result of being flogged. As Jesus carried His own cross to Golgotha ( John 19:17 ), He collapsed, and a man named Simon was forced to either carry the cross or help Jesus carry the cross the rest of way to the hill ( Matthew 27:32–33 ; Mark 15:21–22 ; Luke 23:26 ). This collapse indicates Jesus had low blood pressure. Another indicator that Jesus suffered from hypovolemic shock was that He declared He was thirsty as He hung on the cross ( John 19:28 ), indicating His body’s desire to replenish fluids.
Prior to death, the sustained rapid heartbeat caused by hypovolemic shock also causes fluid to gather in the sack around the heart and around the lungs. This gathering of fluid in the membrane around the heart is called pericardial effusion, and the fluid gathering around the lungs is called pleural effusion. This explains why, after Jesus died and a Roman soldier thrust a spear through Jesus’ side, piercing both the lungs and the heart, blood and water came from His side just as John recorded in his Gospel ( John 19:34 ).
I appreciate your comment, Cal.
As a skeptic, it's not hard for to imagine that anyone writing that would know exactly what kind of condition a person suffering from torture would be in (man that sentence is bad!)
Also, anyone writing of this era has probably seen a crucifixion or two, so they're not making stuff up, at least I don't think so.
I watched a History Channel program about crucifixion and they primarily focused on the crucifixion itself and how it killed a person.
I don't consider that a deal breaker. I read an article about Pontius Pilate and evidently there was very little evidence of him being alive either, even though he was the military governor of the region. Many prominent people at that time didn't get written about.
You can't consider Jesus Christ to be the most important person in the history of humanity, and then insinuate that he was no more important than his contemporaries when it suits your defense.
No problem!
I worked in healthcare for several years, you are mistaken.
No one, who ever wrote about Jesus, had ever met Jesus. Everything written about Jesus is hearsay at best.
and the widow's son,
that Elijah raised from the dead in 1 Kings 17:17-24.
the same Elijah who eventually took a ride in a chariot of fire and ascended to heaven, very much alive...
With the exception of people who try (and fail) to mock evolution, no one has ever said humans are descended from monkeys.
I have found that people who say evolution claims that humans evolved from monkeys clearly have no clue about evolution.
You'll get no argument from me on that.
Oh yeah, I hated that as a science teacher. Everytime we got to evolution in the textbook, that would be the first thing I would hear. The other thing was the missing link.. ugh.
apparently the author believes in evolution via monkeys. did you even bother to read the article before commenting?
The author does not. He talked of "biped human ancestors diverged from their chimp relatives"
Chimps are not monkeys. And the author made a point of saying biped human ancestors.. meaning a totally different branch.
You are aware that we share 96% of our DNA with Chimps, correct? That doesn't make us ancestors of chimps but of a divergent branch. There are many of these divergent branches.
The way I like to put it is that we are a type of ape. African apes are more closely related to us than they are to Asian apes. You can't group the apes together without including humans.
Well, yes and no. We diverged from apes a long time ago. There was a common ancestor, hence us sharing 96% of our DNA.
This is some dude on youtube's ideas. It is hardly reliable.
it isn't just some dude.
here is another one showing the evolution of humans which includes monkeys (primates). you also need to rethink the dna from chimpanzees claim.
The author neither believes nor said any such thing. You and you alone are the only person here stating we are evolved from monkeys, own it and be proud of yourself. You'll still be wrong but you'll be proud of it.
I had a biology teacher in 10th grade that didn't want to discuss evolution in class, only creation. Why he never got in trouble, I don't know, except for maybe it was because it was rural PA in the late 70's and people thought there should still be prayer in school. Anyway, he threw me out of his class numerous times because I was "disrespectful".
Yes I can imagine the frustration you felt. There's a lot of ignorance on this subject out there, you can only do what you can to dispel it.
This is why people like you who think they know everything, never really know anything.
Maybe you can get a clue to what evolution actually is and the process.
Holly Dunsworth is an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Rhode Island, where she teaches courses on human origins, evolution, and variation. She performs paleontological work at the Early Miocene sites on Rusinga Island, Kenya, where some of the most ancient fossil apes are preserved. She also studies living primates, particularly when it comes to their energy use, reproduction, and life history
LMAO it's hilarious watching you try to squirm out answering the actual conversation. Allow me to remind you what it is about
No deflections, no moving the goalposts allowed. Did the author state or say he believed we evolved from monkeys?
If you can answer the above honestly I may consider looking at your additional points.
BTW I am not a know it all and freely admit that I am ignorant about a great many things, can you do the same?
Skirting the CoC [ph]
too frickin funny you are.
from the same article you didn't bother to fucking read.
chimpanzees (which the author said) branched from monkeys....Skirting the CoC [ph]
2000 years of incestuous family orgies after dinner is finished is an easier concept to grasp for fundamentalists.
Nice language, so you cannot honestly answer. Too bad as I found your statements interesting and read up on them, could have been an interesting discussion. Happy New Year and goodbye
three references where given, if you can't figure it out by then, Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
Nice article, Hal A. Lujah.
I am watching "Stories from the Stone Age". Fact is far more interesting than fiction.
Is there any purpose for all those rows of ............................................?
Time.
Can you elaborate on that please.
Each dot equals 1,000 years.
45 dots per line equals 45,000 years.
70 lines of 45 dots equals 3,150,000 years - just 'bout the time of Lucy's discovery at 3.2M years by Dr. Leakey.
6,500 dots x 1,000yrs/dot = 6,500,000 years. That is approximately when the most primitive bipeds arose. My intent was to show 6,500 dots, while being bounced around in a car on my phone, anyways.
IAW the article each period symbolizes one thousand years of time. The longest use of periods symbolizes how much time has passed since the first bipedal humanoids evolved.
Hmm apparently I'm the slowest typist of three of us that responded lol.
Damn - how'd I miss all those dots?????
I remember the new Cosmos series a few years ago in which Neil DeGrasse Tyson did something similar: he compressed the entire existence of the universe into a 1-month calendar.
Interesting side note to the new Cosmos series.... Did you see who produced it? The creator of Family Guy...Seth McFarlane.
Yeah, I noticed that.
I could type for hours on this article, and thanks for it. But, I have to be up very early.... Lets hope this article gets some traction and I will add to it tomorrow.
Good article, and good illustration. Perspective can be mind blowing sometimes.
I think you might have accidentally missed a zero there. It's more like 700 (if we ballpark the chimp/human split at somewhere around 6.4 mya, that is.)
I threw this article together on my phone, as a passenger in a car bumping along the highway at the end of a nine hour car ride. The intent was to provide a simple illustration of time as it relates to human evolution based on round number benchmarks. After reviewing it, you are correct. 4,500,000,000/6,400,000 = 703. Thank you for the correction.
Visual comparisons can be very helpful. Numbers that end with the sound "yun" tend to run together and lose their significance with some folks.
Here is another good example, using what large amounts of money look like in terms of $100 bills. Now imagine that there is an afterlife, and that all humans that are ever born eventually end up there for eternity. Going back to 50,000 BC, it is estimated that about 108 billion humans have been born. Going back further to include all other earlier forms of humanity, who knows what that number might be - maybe one trillion? Imagine entering an eternal afterlife realm inhabited with billions of other souls, all of whom have existed there for different multitudes of time longer than you. Play out that scenario in your head, for eternity. No thanks. But that's not how religions want us to envision heaven. They want you think of it in terms of the land of milk and honey, full stop. A place where you get to know God personally ... despite the billions of others who want some face time too. 1.8 people die per second on earth, and many of them think that they will get to meet God when they cross over. God is a busy guy, apparently.
While I will take any of that money in the piles I do not like crowds so that's another reason not to believe in the afterlife. Thanks.
I hear you. It's a good one, too. Simple, yet effective.
Another way to illustrate how much a trillion really is... A trillion seconds is 31,709.8 years. Most humans have a difficult time understanding just how much a trillion really is. Or if you want to take it out a little further, 1 Quintilian seconds is 32 billion years.
Is the national debt faster than the speed of light?
Maybe you can learn something if you read this
"Is it fair to blame any president for events over which he had no control? During Obama's terms, there was less federal income than usual. The recession and the Bush tax cuts reduced tax receipts. At the same time, the cost of Social Security , Medicare, and other mandatory programs continued to increase. The War on Terror , although technically over, was still being fought in Afghanistan and Iraq .
The fairest method is to measure the debt incurred by Obama's specific policies. The Congressional Budget Office does this for every program. The CBO found that Obama's largest contribution to the debt was the Obama tax cuts , which were an extension of the Bush tax cuts.
They added $858 billion to the debt in 2011 and 2012.
The next largest was the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act . It added $787 billion between 2009 and 2012. It cut taxes, extended unemployment benefits , and funded job-creating public works projects. Like the tax cuts, the ARRA stimulated the economy after the 2008 financial crisis
Obama increased military spending to around $800 billion a year. In fact, his security budget request of $895 billion in FY 2011 set a new record. In FY 2013, he requested $851 billion. That happened even though he withdrew troops from Iraq in 2012 and eliminated the threat from Osama bin Laden in 2011. Obama spent $857 billion in contingency funds during his administration. That was more than the $850 billion Bush devoted to the War on Terror.
What about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ? It didn't add anything to the debt in Obama's first term . Most of Obamacare's costs began in 2014 when the health insurance exchanges opened. It also extended coverage to more low-income people that year. But Obamacare's tax increases offset its costs to the tune of $104 billion between 2010 and 2019.
Congress and Obama also negotiated the sequestration budget cuts. That cut the deficit by a small percent. When all these are added up, Obama's debt contribution was $983 billion between 2009 and 2017. "
Obama pissed me off when he extended the Bush tax cuts. Ending them was a cornerstone of his campaign. I was calling him 'Oballess' for months after that!
According to the analysis above, continuation of the Bush tax cuts was Obama's biggest contribution to the national debt.
Would the right have loved him more if he had ended the cuts?
I think we all know the answer to that. The right opposed everything Obama did, and if he had done the opposite, they would have opposed that too. They attacked him from both sides of every issue. There was a NV article about the Ukraine/Crimea conflict in which half the righties were attacking Obama for sticking his nose in where he shouldn't, 'poking the bear' unnecessarily; and the other half were calling him a wimp for not doing more, on THE SAME ARTICLE!!
It's efficient to attack an opponent from all sides, regardless of the impact on your credibility. That's what the party of no was all about.
If you can answer that, then what's the speed of dark?
I'm only speaking for myself but for me ..... it's full tilt boogie
This sense of scale is also important in acceptance of the concept of evolution. I've heard people balk at the concept of evolution, simply because they can't see it happen in real time. They remain unconvinced when confronted with evidence of miniscule evolutionary changes that do occur over tangible timeframes, such as viral and bacterial mutations, or changes in a finch species' beak over decades in a selective environment - because it's too insignificant of a change for them. If a significant evolutionary change takes ten to one hundred generations to complete, you have to accept that it can only be witnessed in terms of detailed forensic archeological and anthropological analysis. Watching it happen is not an option.
It happens faster than previously thought.
Richard Dawkins, in "The Ancestor's Tale" goes into detail about how it all came down.
There are three disciplines: 1. Faith. 2. Science. 3. Reason. The three can and do mix without tearing themselves into tatters. The problem exist with some people. People who attempt to make it a win or lose proposition.
And, of course, logic and theory fall into place.
There is no religious doctrine that is consistent with science. If you think you are successfully mixing the two, then you must be exhausted from the exercise in mental gymnastics. Attempts would include the novelty of "one year to us is a million years to god", and "there is no such thing as time in heaven". Time is ubiquitous in our existence as humans. Pretending that we can imagine an existence that doesn't include time is a bit ridiculous. There is one thing in common with a trip to the store, a horse race, picking your nose, and any other activity that exists in reality - the passage of time. No activity can be imagined without it occurring in relation to a second hand spinning in circles.
To be clear I said faith, not organized religion. But more on this later, I am away for the day. I will venture this. You are apparently writing from your naturalist worldview. I can speak from several worldviews, because I am open to diversity of worldviews. Furthermore, one of the interesting and curious mysteries of this life of faith in God is as you walk along its path you learn truths about yourself and the surrounding world before unknown to you. As for people who are in fact, "successfully mixing the two" I can introduce you to medical doctors and scientists who do so extraordinarily well without any mental exhaustion. Case in point:
Francis Collins, Human Genome Project Director.
No one knows better than Dr. Francis Collins how easy it might be for scientists to play God. As the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute since 1993 — what some call the most prestigious job in science — Collins has led the effort to decode human DNA, along the way developing a revolutionary method of screening genes for disease. Yet according to this widely respected scientist, the newfound power to "read our own instruction book" is no obstacle to faith in the existence of God. He converted from atheism to Christianity in his twenties after seeing how radically his patients' faith transformed their experience of suffering, and after reading several works by C.S. Lewis. Some 30 years later , he stands by his convictions, positioning science not as substitute for theology, but as a subset of it.
I am not sure why you addressed this to me, but I am not willing to let it pass. Please elaborate.
I'd say that they're doing that despite being superstitious. Compartmentalization can be a good thing.
You are a Christian, are you not? Any Christian, Muslim or Jew is equally at odds with the timeline problem, and the eternity conundrum.
That is only if you take the books literally. If you take them as parable then no.
As you say Perrie, Genesis is a creation story. Other cultures had their own equivalent. It was not meant as a literal timeline.
Do you take Jesus himself to be a parable? If not, then can you explain why the embodiment of God itself didn’t bother to inform his followers that they were the tip of a very protracted evolutionary sequence that had been occurring for thousands of generations? Deliberately not informing your followers about 99.999% of their historical ancestry seems a little irresponsible.
I don't think that Jesus said most of the things that have been attributed to him. He certainly didn't talk about the origins of man.
He certainly didn't talk about the origins of man.
You don’t find that to be a little strange? Isn’t the real reason obvious? He wasn’t the embodiment of the creator of the universe, and thus had no more knowledge of natural history than any of his peers.
Jesus was a philosopher, not a science teacher.
Hal, you are creating an argument out of thin air. Jesus was under no requirement to teach according to what people like you would like to have seen taught. That includes him discussing the timelines of evolution.
Reasonable people strive to be fair-minded, flexible, adaptable, and wish to accurately interpret information.
I am a Christian. I have not mentioned any timeline problem, per se.
Jesus was more than likely a composite of previous Messiahs.
Exactly, the entire Christian faith is a composite of previous myths. Not only is Christianity obvious bullshit, it isn't even ORIGINAL bullshit.
Indeed, most indigenous Tribes in the world have their own version of creation.
Hal brings up a good point. There is no knowledge in the bible above the very limited knowledge of man at the time, nothing. The bible describes the earth as flat, stationary, and supported on pillars. How can anyone seriously believe it is the word of an all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe?
The Bible is not an encyclopedia.
It would have been helpful if the Great Sky Fairy had mentioned something about the germ vs demon theory of disease, or had thought to prohibit rape, pedophilia or genocide.
You don't find it curious that Jesus didn't impart any knowledge on nature to anyone at all? He was supposedly curing people of disease, but not educating anyone on disease? He could have taught his peers some basic instruction on how to increase crop yield and thereby effectively address hunger and starvation, but instead stuck to magic tricks to multiply loaves of bread and fish? What about the whole teach a man to fish for a lifetime rather than give him fish for a day?
You can claim that it wasn't Jesus's job to be a science teacher all you want, but is abundantly clear that the only reason he didn't impart knowledge of nature is because he had none to impart. That is your god.
That would have been a defeat of purpose . Jesus came to fulfill prophecy and the things written about the Messiah . Your tone is just the run of the mill taunt and sneer factor.
Moreover, it would have been anachronistic (out of step with time) for Jesus to offer up guns, trains, and airplanes. /s
::
4 But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase. ”
8 As for me, I heard but could not understand; so I said, “My lord, what will be the [ j ] outcome of these events ?” 9 He said, “Go your way , Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time. 10 Many will be purged, purified and refined, but the wicked will act wickedly; and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand . 13 But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age.”
::
So people die. So people shall stand in their 'lot' in time at the end of time.
Then why would he perform miracles at all? Why would he say it is better to teach a man to fish than to give him a fish? You are waaaaayyyyy too dismissive of my question. I didn't say anything about guns, trains and airplanes. I'm talking about obvious tips about nature that would be pertinent to the time.
Your galvanized responses are just a drag on the conversation. If you spent half as much time thinking as you do looking up scripture quotes, we might be having a productive conversation. Face it - your Jesus character is either a complete myth, or a complete fraud.
From Scriptural Orchard Co-authored by Calbab and Enoch
The Gospels are predominately about the signs and wonders Jesus performed to persuade his audience he is the anointed one of God. The focus of the four books are on the birth, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Study of these narratives primarily should be to persuade readers Jesus is the proven Messiah.
Old Testament prophets in their writings foretold of miraculous changes in at least nine major aspects of the world when the Messiah would appear:
Jesus demonstrated power over each of these aspects during his years of ministry. The portrait Jesus paints of God during his service in ministry is foremost and primary. As followers of Jesus continue to draw out life-application principles for their own lives by his “modeling” faith, it is essential we comprehend just how much the day-to-day ministry activities of Jesus were closely tied to his attentiveness to fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies ascribed to the coming-Messiah.
Jesus demonstrated power over each of these aspects during his years of ministry.
Is that a joke? He was totally forgotten once he was strung up for the dogs to eat. Can you name any other person in history who mastered climate, farming, medicine, and the key to life expectancy, only to be forgotten and ignored for decades after they died? Where is the evidence of any of your claims? It doesn't exist, period.
I have heard hundreds of sermons in my day on Sundays from Catholic priests. I can't recall any of them being about the principles of science. Plus I went to Catholic school and had religion class for 12 years. None of the religion teachers talked about the origin of germs.
Your hatred for religion leads you into some weird angles.
You're just strengthening my point. They can't teach a lesson that doesn't exist. Why not question why that is? What's so extreme about pointing out that there is nothing about Jesus that supports the notion that he had useful knowledge that nobody else had? He's supposed to be the embodiment of the creator of the universe, but all he has is magic tricks and philosophy. He wasn't even memorable enough for anyone to bother entering him into the historical record for decades after his death.
You have a job description for Jesus that very few other people have. No one ever asks "why isn't the religion teacher teaching about science", until now that is.
I'm an atheist - it is not my job to instruct Jesus on how to convince his future adherents that he was actually the embodiment of the creator of the universe. That is his failure alone. If you would rather plug your ears and chant la-la-la than consider the question, that is your prerogative. I love a good magic trick myself, but if the magician tries to tell me he is the embodiment of the creator of the universe, he better back it up with something better than magic tricks.
It's in the Bible, Hal. The only reason why you can not accept it is you simply do not have faith. Moreover, you look for (more) signs and wonders in the age reserved for faith! And, where did you ever get the notion that Jesus was ignored for decades after his departure ?
26 Eight days later the disciples were together again, and this time Thomas was with them. The doors were locked; but suddenly, as before, Jesus was standing among them. “Peace be with you,” he said. 27 Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here, and look at my hands. Put your hand into the wound in my side. Don’t be faithless any longer. Believe!” 28 “My Lord and my God!” Thomas exclaimed. 29 Then Jesus told him, “You believe because you have seen me. Blessed are those who believe without seeing me.”
Hal, I am certain this kind of 'speak' is too much for you. "Signs and wonders."? "Blessed."? "Believe without seeing."? A skeptic's nightmare! I know this, because I was a skeptic too.
The 'foolishness' of spiritual awakening in the life of an unbeliever if and when you do experience such, is you will ". . .believe without seeing me." Just like all other believers since the first century!
Well, Jesus was born in a manger. . . . Seriously Hal. If prophesy means anything to you read this, please:
1Who has believed our message
and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?
2 He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.
3 He was despised and rejected by mankind,
a man of suffering, and familiar with pain.
Like one from whom people hide their faces
he was despised, and we held him in low esteem.
4 Surely he took up our pain
and bore our suffering,
yet we considered him punished by God,
stricken by him, and afflicted.
5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was on him,
and by his wounds we are healed.
6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to our own way;
and the Lord has laid on him
the iniquity of us all. . . .
Isaiah 53.
Hal, at the end of the day, this prophetic utterance is about Jesus. This "nobody" by Jewish, Roman, and the times he lived in stated, "If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto me." There is some hyperbole there we can observe, because we all can clearly discern a body of skeptics standing aloof.
or it could be about any of the other myths who have similar biographies and pre date Jesus.
There are 10 christ like figures who pre-date jesus at the link below.
See? Well there you have it! You have 10 reasons not to believe Jesus, mocowgirl! You know what this means. . . more Jesus for me. /s
I have far more than 10.
There are older religions and gods.
Yahweh and Yeshua were both created along the same lines as the other gods that were worshipped in the areas that the Hebrews resided.
I believe in evolution which disperses with the Garden of Eden. Without original sin, there is no need of Yahweh to be born as Yeshua to pray to Yahweh and then sacrifice Yeshua in order to appease Yahweh to accept a portion of the flawed creatures that Yahweh created.
Professor Bart Ehrman, and I quote:
Nice Calbab. This should be interesting.
Hi lennylynx! It is hard to follow your train of thought: Are you wanting to understand the Bible/New Testament or defeat the Bible as a whole? Some of your questions are great and appear to come from a seeker, yet other comments have all the features of a sneer. Frankly, it's confusing.
The Bible is a spiritual book. It is predominately about God's dealings with Israel and it outgrowth into a sect called, Christians. It is not a science book. It made no attempt to "speed mankind alone" scientifically. Time took care of that!
It's late. Reading through message. Tired now. Stopping here.
Hi Calbab, and Happy New Year!
I'm not sure I know what you mean by 'defeat the Bible.' If you mean that I don't believe in the literal truth of stories like the creation myth, the flood myth, the Tower of Babel myth about why we speak different languages, and the contention that earth is the stationary center of the universe, then YES, I am trying to 'defeat the Bible,' as you put it. The way I look at it, however, is that nothing 'defeats the Bible,' like the Bible itself. I have read it from cover to cover, and it is the Bible itself, more than anything else, that convinces me it could not possibly be the word of an all powerful, all knowing creator of the universe, even if such a being does exist. I hope this helps you understand my position.
Happy New Year! Wholeheartedly! The most determined aspect of faith in God is focus. Perhaps, you are not a seeker right now. It is hard to know. In that case, "Steady on!"
My seeking days are long behind me Cal. My brother is a born again Christian and I tried everything he suggested back then: fellowshipping with Christians, confessing your belief to others, reading the bible, etc. He shouldn't have told me the last thing, that's where he lost me!
Although I don't believe what he believes, I'm very proud of my brother, he really takes Christianity to heart and spends most of his time helping out Christian groups in some of the most dangerous parts of Mexico.
I was a seeker all of my life. That is why I ventured outside of the churches that I was raised in (Methodist and Church of Christ) and attended other sects (Pentecostal, Baptist and Mormon) and discussed doctrine with people who belonged to any Christian sect.
All sects had their good points and some had ridiculous rules that were nowhere in the Bible. I figured this was why the sects were always fighting on which one was the "true" Church of Christ. I found all of fighting to be unacceptable and left organized religion by the time I was 30, but still read my Bible and prayed.
It was only a few years ago that I learned about evolution and the origins of the Christian religion. I did not have an "aha" moment. I was mostly unhappy about being deceived by the people that I had trusted as a child even though I knew that they had not had access to any better of an education than I had had.
There is no way that I could believe in a god today unless it revealed itself to all of mankind. If it only revealed itself to me, I would hope that I still possessed enough awareness of self to know that I had brain trauma that could hopefully be cured by modern science. I sincerely hope that I would not go into the world and find followers who believed that someone a god had decided that I was its spokesperson like Jim Jones, the disciples, the Pope, Joseph Smith, etc.
Beautiful story, lennylynx. I just love it!. Do you. I understand.
If God and faith are meant to be a part of a life: Faith will introduce itself appropriately! Happy New Year! I mean this from my heart!!
Mocowgirl, there is much in your comment I could reply to, but I am going to just write in general. People walk away from God for any number of reasons. In my case, as an early adult I realized I had some "straightening out to do," in the natural world, and at the time my thinking was God can find me out there. . . down the road. God did find me, and it certainly was a long way down the road. For I did all that was in my heart to do. On reconnecting on the spiritual journey, this time surer, I learned something significant in my bible reading about "appointed times." You may have remembered articles where I have used the phrase several times over in discussions relating to God.
Appointed times are how I see God acting in life. For instance, God knew in Genesis that Jesus, the Messiah, would come into the natural world, yet when the appointed time arrived how Jesus came, lived, died, and resurrected according to prophecies and not all of anybody was the wiser.
Appointed times. God is not 'excited' by our human emotions and need for "right now" event-making. Seeing that the world is 13 plus billion years old according to science, then it is 'easy' for God to take all the time necessary to know "the end from the beginning" of a single human life—if God wishes. Why am I saying this?
I want you to understand that I do not proselytize anybody. I simply share what good I know and have. If God wishes to "increase" off of it, then let the appointed time be God's. The received impact may never be known to me, for I am not the goal. Moreover, I've learned not to sweat the work and activities that fall solely under God's purview. I am not sure this is what you need to hear from me at this point, but I wanted to answer you different than formerly. Happy New Year!
Are you referring to Yahweh as your god because if you are then I know Yahweh to be as mythical as Zeus, Apollo, Odin and all of the other tens of thousands of gods that men have created.
Yahweh is based on older gods and the same with Yeshua.
The Bible is not a guidebook for morality - unless one considers stoning disrespectful children to death to be moral. It pretty much goes downhill from there as far as "morals" that would be acceptable in most societies in today's world.
Decent people are decent in spite of the Bible, not because of it. The lowlifes, who know how to game the system, try to use religion to justify any number of things and gain support and acceptance in this life via the "he who is without sin" and the "judge not" crap.
Women (me included) have been taught that we must not only submit to abusive men, but we must forgive them and pray for them if we are to be acceptable in the eyes of Yahweh. This is brainwashing to accept and justified being abused and is probably one of the reasons that abuse of women by men is rampant in the US.
You are discussing Jesus. Hal, excuse me, "Chapter and verse" is what Jesus do, don't you know! I take exception to your writing I 'drag' the conversation and need to "think." I'll have you know it takes a lot thinking to draw up these cataloged scriptures at will. Thinking is how I come to know them from waaaay back. Now then, let me ask you -- is Jesus a complete myth or a fraud? Can't be both!
He is a fraudulent myth, created for the purposes of establishing the most controlling religion of its day.
Yahweh and Yeshua are based on older gods worshipped in the region where the Hebrews lived.
Believe it or not.
For those of us, who know that Yahweh did not poof into existence and then have a need to create billions of planets, stars, and creatures to inhabit just one of them, we view your religion as the cult that it is.
I was a Christian for over 5 decades of my life only because I was raised in the Bible Belt and indoctrinated into the Christian faith from the time that I was old enough to understand stories from the Bible.
When I finally gained internet access and l finally learned about evolution and it had nothing to do with the Christian claim that evolution is about monkeys falling from trees as men.
It is illogical that a god would have a gender and "needs" to be worshipped or be vengeful and torture its creations for not worshipping it. Those are the traits of the men who created this god. They needed to be obeyed and imposed horrendous punishments for people who opposed them.
Christianity would have just been another failed and forgotten religion had it not been for the Roman emperor, Constantine, who spread Christianity at the point of the sword. Christianity has a very violent, divisive and detrimental to mankind past. There is no reason to allow Christians to enslave people outside of their religion in the same manner that has happened throughout the history of the Christian religion.
I will note that I feel the same about any other gods of any other religion past or present.
This is what turns the skeptics away from wanting to talk to you. You want to preach, we want to discuss.
Who is the Bible about? Clue - Yahweh and Yeshua. So even though you did not technically type "Yahweh and Yeshua", you are indeed talking about Yahweh and Yeshua.
There is nothing good about a being that creates a flawed creature and then punishes it for being flawed.
A few years ago, on Newsvine, there was a guy named Frank who posted his childhood experiences of being raped by priests, in graphic detail. Some of them would quote scripture to him while violently, anally raping him. His posts were difficult to read and left most of us speechless. [postless?] It is extremely difficult, especially for a man, to admit these things. My admiration for Frank is immeasurable, I'll never forget him.
I don't remember Frank exactly, but it is probably due to my spending so much time discussing rampant abuse of women and children in the US and trying to understand why our society is filled with so many sadistic men in positions of power throughout our nation and why so many women uphold the abusers. Indoctrination into a patriarchal religion is one of the reasons that women submit themselves and their children to abusive men - their Bible tells them to.
Pedophiles seek positions of trusted authority over children. There are few other occupations that a pedophile can choose that has been exempt from being challenged than that of a man who has a religious title in the Christian religion.
When pedophiles rape girls, the girls are often blamed for being "sexy" in some way and "asking for it". When pedophiles rape boys, it is a dastardly crime committed by homosexuals and the pedophiles should face legal consequences.
When the most recent Pope made noise about not judging homosexuals, I felt that the motive had more to do with making people forgive his cult's priestly pedophiles than caring about what happened to homosexuals.
Former Pope Benedict created a PR nightmare for the Roman Catholic Church when he tried to justify pedophile priests....
You might find it interesting to note that the Pope defends pedophile priests raping children and then blames global warming on atheists.
Remember, according to the Christian religion, atheists are going to Hell while pedophile priests will be spending an eternity in paradise just for believing in Jesus. Depending on the sect, the rapists may have to say "I'm sorry and repent" once or twice before Saint Peter ushers them through the Pearly Gates.
another link you might find enlightening...
Frank was only around for a week or two, but he sure left an impression.
There is written evidence of child rape in the CC from as far back as the 3rd or 4th century. Priests had been raping children with impunity for centuries. It has only been starting to get addressed just recently. Any child daring to accuse a priest of rape in the old days would have likely been beaten by their parents for it. I wonder how many 'village idiots,' outcasts of towns, weirdos, were actually victims of rapist priests. Comment removed for TOS [ph]. What normal man would take a vow of celibacy? What pedophile, who knows he can never allow himself to fulfil his true desires, would NOT be attracted to the priesthood?
I stopped attending the CC at 14 when my father allowed me to. He was greatly disappointed in me, but he respected my decision. I hadn't been to church for 25 years, when I attended a midnight mass at Christmas time about 15 years ago. I thought I had completely forgotten about the service, but to my great surprise, I knew exactly when to sit, when to stand, when to kneel, every single word to say, and exactly when to say it! I could probably still do it today; we were indoctrinated since birth. You can leave the Catholic Church, but it never leaves you.
I reported this comment as a violation of the TOS.
You think you might change a Christians mind on here and have them doubt their faith and turn away from it?
I’m not sure why you think I have some goal to turn Christian members into atheists - you must feel threatened by me. I don’t want to be responsible for turning you into an atheist, I want you to be responsible for that. Personally, I don’t care what you believe, but if you were to ask me for a suggestion I’d say believe that god is a myth.
child rape and child brides have been going on in all cultures, religions, professions, since before man evented centuries. without punishment
There is simply no excuse for it. I have a hard time coming to grips with how any decent person can still support the Catholic Church, but my sister, aunts, uncles, and cousins who still support TOS [ph] are all wonderful, loving, caring people. They are so indoctrinated, however, that the negative stuff, no matter how serious, simply gets pushed out of their minds. I can tell that Shep is a wonderful, caring human being too, but his mind can not even consider the possibility that there can be negative aspects to his faith, or any possibility that it might not be completely valid. Religions, like the military, use well-known brainwashing techniques to indoctrinate their members...
Lenny, these comments are against the rules of Newstalkers as I understand it
You agree that you will not post, email or make available any content or use this Network:
in a manner that is hateful or discriminatory based on race, color, sex, religion,....
Desist.
It is in my opinion. Why should I not be able to express my opinion of the Catholic Church?
You're being ridiculous, grow up.
should that be was a pedophile cult? do you think it still is?
Stop posting hate speech about the Catholic Church.
I just showed you why not. Hate speech based on religion is not allowed.
About 4% of catholic priests were accused of being child sex abusers.
"The following 10 facts and statistics, drawn from the National Center for Victims of Crime "Child Sexual Abuse" fact sheet , reveals the scope of child sexual abuse in the U.S. and its devastating long-term impact on a child's life:
- 67% were under age 18
- 34% were under age 12
- 14% were under age 6
Of offenders who victimized children under age 6, 40% were under age 18. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2000.)"There are 90,000 child sex abuse cases every year in the United States.
==================================================
The (John Jay)report determined that, during the period from 1950 to 2002, a total of 10,667 individuals had made allegations of child sexual abuse . Of these, the dioceses had been able to identify 6,700 unique accusations against 4,392 clergy over that period in the USA, which is about 4% of all 109,694 ordained clergy i.e. priests or deacons or members of religious orders, active in the USA during the time covered by the study.
That is a drop in the bucket compared to all cases of child sex abuse.
The fact is that child sex abuse occurs everywhere men (or rarely women) with the predisposition have unsupervised access to children.
Well, at the very least, it was until very recently. It is debatable whether or not it still is, so I would be willing to amend my opinion to say 'was.' Point taken.
Thank-you for posting my statement that was pulled, JR, I would like members' opinions about this. I have seen Islam called a 'death cult' without being pulled. I believe my opinion of the Catholic Church is my right to express, and would like to have it restored.
The child sex abuse committed by Catholic priests is less than a drop in the bucket of all child sex abuse.
96% of priests have never been accused of doing anything wrong. To smear all of them to make some sort of name for yourself on a discussion forum is borderline low life.
If they don't do anything wrong it is really none of your business.
There are 90,000 cases of child sex abuse in the U.S. every year, almost none of them committed by Catholic priests.
The Church made a bad mistake by trying to handle criminal matters within the religious organization. And it has paid for years now with damage to it's reputation. In terms of the actual abuse, it is less than a drop in the bucket of the total cases.
So what does that make the rest of the males in the society?
Absolutely, and I would say the most prolifically abusing of all these, and of all time, is the Catholic Church.
I'm not going to argue over which religion is worse, Shep, I intensely dislike all of the Abrahamic faiths. I would like your opinion on my statement that was pulled. I know you don't like it, but should we not be able to attack a religion, or any organization for that matter?
So you don't believe in evolution?
Do you believe that Adam was created from dust and lived alone in the Garden of Eden, and then Eve was created from Adam's rib?
My brother Hal, you mentioned in 4.2.2.1.… Bart Denton Ehrman , an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the development of early Christianity thinking. It is true that Mr. Ehrman is no friend of Jesus' miracle-working power narratives and may no longer be a supportive member in the Christian faith, but let us hear Professor Ehrman in his words about whether Jesus is a myth. Let's listen in a bit:
Professor Ehrman says Jesus is not a myth! Brother, I ask you again: Is Jesus a myth?
You never answered the question. Typical.
I've said this before here: while Bart Ehrman's books have had an enormous impact on me and what my views are on Christianity, we disagree on one main point. Bart believes Jesus was an actual person, I don't.
Bart doesn't believe that Jesus performed miracles, just that he was a prophetic individual whose legacy was conjured up to embellish ordinary events to the point of being construed as miracles. For example, Bart believes that Jesus was a proficient organizer. The story of him multiplying bread and fish was likely just the zealot version of an actual ordinary event. Rather than performing a miracle, Jesus organized and motivated the large crowd that had come to hear him speak. From the fraction of people who had come prepared to feed themselves and their family members that day, he gathered enough food to feed the whole crowd. Decades later, when this event was memorialized on paper for the purposes of exulting him, it turned into the miracle that it is currently considered to be by Christians.
Wait.
If God created man to be perfect, then why did God allow Man to be tempted by the Tree of Knowledge? If Man were perfect, he would have resisted the temptation because God told him not to eat from that tree.
And don't give me the free will speech, either. God is supposedly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, so He would have known exactly what his perfect creation was going to do, wasn't he?
I don't have a problem believing that there actually was a person like Jesus 2000 years ago. Was his name Jesus? Probably not. Mocowgirl calls him Yeshua and I think that's probably his name. Did he perform miracles? I highly doubt it, but you know how myths are created, you gave a good example in your comment.
Historical Jesus (Yeshua)? Yes
Divine Jesus? No
And when people disagree on that point, it hurts nothing. When your position is that Jesus was not divine, whether he existed or not is about as meaningful as whether his childhood friend Timmy existed. Some people just can't grasp that point, because they are incapable of concluding that Jesus may not have been divine in the first place.
Because Jesus and his disciples were given English names a few hundred years ago....
Yahweh likes to play games with his creations to torment and punish them while demanding that they sing its praises for tormenting and punishing them.
This is a very sadistic god.
Hi cowgirl......you have been through some pretty rough times in your life. I understand that.
To me, though, God is love. I've never been much on the hell and brimstone part. One can go to the darkest recesses in our world and most will believe that there is something greater than ourselves. Call it what you want to, but He exists.
Happy New Year.
If you don't believe in Timmy, we are going to have a fight on our hands.
Because Jesus and his disciples were given English names a few hundred years ago....
And now he's full on Amurican.
So everyone of every belief system or religion that doesn't follow or believe in Jesus is screwed then, is that what you're saying?
Uber huge "if" there.
If we "choose" to not follow your god, he'll send us to hell. Hmph, some god. He has to resort to ultimatums and threats to gain our fealty.
I can be the biggest dirtbag in the world, but as long as I believe in Jesus, I have a "get out of hell free" card. Meanwhile, an actual decent person goes to hell. Your god has some screwed up priorities.
Who knew god was so materialistic.
Yes the Bible makes it clear that any person who has not accepted Christ will parish in Hell.
Best Freudian slip I've seen in a while.
You believe in a pretty bigoted and judgy god. That isn't the god that I would believe in... and I am not an atheist. God, would have a much more forgiving being than that. It should be good acts in this life that gets you in or out of heaven.
I don’t think it’s a choice. I can’t choose to believe in a God if I don’t believe in a God.
A very Happy New Year to you.
unfortunately its not that way, i have been told by a religious commenter on NT that if an Atheist saved their life - that Atheist will still go to Hell and be condemned by the religious. It matters not what acts he/she performs in life.
I have explained this to you several times. Given you continue to project confusion and surprise about why atheists discuss theistic beliefs it is clear that you are not trying to understand but rather simply complain. Arguing that atheists are secretly theists simply tarnishes your credibility IMO.
For those who have not heard my explanation, the reason agnostic atheists (skeptics) debate religious beliefs is because they are stated as truth and because they are acted upon in society. When someone makes a claim of truth - especially the most grand claim of all: the claim of the most supreme possible entity - and backs it up with nothing beyond 'I believe' then that claim should be challenged. Intellectual challenge ... not ridicule.
Same would hold true if someone claims the Earth is flat or that Zeus is real or that extraterrestrials exist in stealth mode on our planet. When extraordinary claims are made without suitable evidence nobody should be surprised when the claims are challenged. And note, the claims of Young Earth Creationists that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (and the related, dependent claims) and the subsequent actions (e.g. indoctrinating part of the next generation into such beliefs) is an example of stating beliefs as truth and acting upon them that I mentioned above.
No, man evolved flawed and has changed over the years.
Look proving evolution isn't all that hard to do.
Why are polar bears white?
A LOOOONG time ago, a brown bear had a genetic, (this is the EXTREMELY short version BTW), "tic", and gave birth to a white bear, that white bear, in the snow, had an advantage over the brown bears. Why? They blended in, so they could hunt better. Little by little, the white bears EVOLVED in the North and the brown bears either died out, or, migrated South because they couldn't compete with white bears. This one white bear was not the sole producer of all white bears, this happened over a very long time. In essence, brown bears evolved to have white fur in order to adapt to the environment they lived in. Like I said, VERY short version.
The God of the Bible has no single definition. Your interpretation, for example, is not shared by the majority of Christians. People are trying to glean truth from ancient words of ancient men pretending to speak for the most grand entity imaginable. Not only is that absurd at the onset, but people hold their individual interpretations as THE truth and declare all others to be wrong.
Have you noticed?
Not true IMO.
Geez, God is just not like that.
He loves all of us. Why can't you all understand that?
He is not a hell and brimstone Being. He is God.....loving and forgiving. He is the maker of the Universe. He will be here when all else is beyond our power.
What part can't you understand?
Agreed, Perrie. It seems to me that there are a lot of people in the world who claim to be pious Christians that take on the Creator's right to judge as their own right and judge other humans with a much harsher set of conditions than they would themselves.
There are millions and millions of people in this world, before and since Christ was born, who have lived, and do live, a good life and done many good things for their fellow man who are not Christians who I feel the Creator would not, and has not, turned away. As well as there are a very good many Christians who claim to be so very righteous, who commit evil to others in His name.
IMHO, we are judged by what is in our hearts and how we live our life more than what religious affiliations we have.
Thank you. Love you!
We are not judged.
I like you because you try to understand other's points of views - at least occasionally.
Maybe, if I hang with you on NT for a few years, we'll come to a better understanding of one another and develop a real friendship outside of discussions about religion.
Dowser is one of the few people that brings out the best in me online....and I do truly love her for it.
Loretta Kemsley is one my dearest online friends and mentors.... and I have had my moments disappointing her, also. I still keep in touch with Loretta and she is doing well (for anyone interested).
God is love.
Very true.
I remember Loretta from NV.
I, probably, won't bring out the best in anyone. God knows that I need the best to be brought out in me.
If I recognize where you come from, then, can you recognize where I come from?
All I am telling you is...you have a friend. I am not clever nor do I have any special insights.
I am just a friend if you want me.
But surely you don't believe that, right?
Why would you be thankful for good people going to hell because they didn't believe in Jesus? That is awful to think that way. Do you know that Mormons don't even consider you a Christian? How do you know that they are not right? So you are fine with a good person going to hell because they didn't accept Jesus? Because they believed in some other faith? Don't you think that we are measured by our deeds?
I agree Mags.
I have to agree Raven. If we are going to believe in a god, he better be better than we are.
I think you have this wrong.
Exactly, Kathleen!
No, Yahweh is jealous.
Very true, Perrie.
Toss out the OT and your argument would be far better supported.
And of course mass execution of all life on the planet except for the inhabitants of an ark
I recommend tucking the OT away as a quaint piece of ancient imagination and go with the NT God of Love instead.
Besides, when a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent God regrets something He cannot possibly be perfect and omniscient. The OT has plenty of flaws like that (what one would expect from the work of ordinary human beings).
Kathleen not to be an A$$ but, I could care less what Richard Dawkins says, what should be important to Christians is what Yahweh says about Himself, in the Ten Commandments he says it as plain as day, he is a jealous god.
He loves all of us. Why can't you all understand that?
Well, he did supposedly drown the entire planet ...
Not to worry, Kathleen, I always enjoy our posts and comments. We have more in common than you may think. (smile)
Kathleen, what I see is that Yahweh is the jealous type, that doesn't equal love in my book but, possession and, being that Yahweh is a god and, claims to have created everything He must look at us as a possession like we would look at our cars or, our dogs. The Hebrews had many words for love, not all were the kind of love I think you are talking about here, there is one word for love that would equal what I am talking about here and, it isn't remotely what you are talking about.
There is Ahavah: Love
Ahavat ah-bree-OHT: Love of Creatures (this is what I believe Yahweh feels for his creation)
I know the feeling, LOL.
You and I get along just fine. Don't I count as someone?
Galen,
I don't know that much about the Bible, as it has never been that much in my life. As a Native American, Cherokee by Tribe, I learned the teachings of my ancestors. To us God is known as Ye Ho Waah, or the Creator. We believe that the Creator created Mother Earth, Father Sky, and all living things that dwell in them both. And we are all His children. Our religious beliefs are Spiritual, not based upon any written words or structured religious regimen or belief.
But, we do believe that the Creator cares deeply for His children. Yet, He gave us the responsibility and obligation to care for Mother Earth and all living things that share our world. I for one have never felt like just an object that He created for his own pleasure, or to use and then discard when we are of no further use to Him.
However, that is just what I was taught by those who have lived in the world for thousands of years, long before Christ was ever born or ever heard of. And the teachings that I live by.
Just my own thoughts.
I cannot agree with you more Raven, I am a Pagan, I was raised in a Christian home and, given the choice to decide what I wanted to follow, I chose Wicca but, I didn't just limit myself to the old ways or, the ways of the wise, I've studied the Bible and, have tried to have myself ready for those who profess to know Yahweh and, Jesus but, can't seem to find common ground with their own god, I try to guide them back to the path they chose.
We are all connected. We are all Brothers and Sisters on this earth. That our religious beliefs may be different, we are still all one family. Instead of trying to find differences in each other, we should try to find the ways in which we are similar. And try to find ways to work together to take care of our obligation to Mother Earth, instead of trying to see how much we can destroy her.
That is my belief, and how I try to live my own life. Not everyone sees it that way, and I respect their own choices and beliefs.
The God Delusion is a good read. Logically presented and thought out. Prof. Dawkins makes Excellent points.
The God Delusion is a good read. Logically presented and thought out. Prof. Dawkins makes Excellent points.
Dawkins does a great job of simply presenting facts and logic in a manner that most people should be able to understand. Many do not even make the attempt to understand what he is saying (even though they could easily comprehend his explanations).
Have you seen this documentary?
And they still don't call the cops when a priest rapes a kid.
Except for Noah and his sons and daughters-in-law. Therefore, every single one of us are descendants of Noah or at least that is what I was taught in Sunday school.
You might be surprised at what can happen via interacting with others who challenge your worldview. I view life as a learning process which is the main reason that I am ever on a blog site.
I accidentally found Newsvine via a news article on MSNBC and was intrigued. I lurked for a few weeks before joining and almost left within the first month because I usually avoided interacting with people just to continuously argue since I prefer to read and research and contemplate only things that I was comfortable with.
I have learned to like having my viewpoints challenged because it makes me challenge myself to read, research and contemplate things from differing perspectives. I try to understand others and find common ground when possible - which sometimes takes months and occasionally years.
I am always happy to have another friend.
I could ask if you shared your singular point of disagreement with Professor Bart Ehrman here when you brought it up and out to validate your claim Jesus is a mythical figure. (I do not think you did so, Hal.)
I'm familiar with the bible. It doesn't change my rational analysis of theistic issues.
Lip service or self delusion doesn't alter reality.
Until you can prove there's a god, then it's not so much opinion.
If there was a god, there would be no such thing as "choice." But I am incapable of following or believing in something for which there is no proof or evidence.
That sounds like god getting a cop out.
Yep, and it's still illogical.
It doesn't.
Why not? How does my not believing in a god prohibit me from talking about it?
While I'm at it, I'll discuss it with Santa Clause and the Tooth fairy too. >sarc<
I comprehend just fine. Which is why it's all BS. But you can believe it if you wish.
From memory, Dawkins has asked for paranormal to be tested in scientifically sound circumstances. He has yet to find genuine evidence of paranormal activities - just claims. That is my position too.
Same deal with extraterrestrials. Claims, but no evidence.
The majority of Christians are not biblical literalists. YEC's are clearly a minority:
The majority of Christians hold faith in the teachings of Jesus and are not biblical literalists. The majority follow a 'watered down' (as you put it) interpretation of the Bible:
Check in again with the majority view because it seems the majority has moved on.
Gonna focus on this one sentence.
This is a tacit admission of at least two positions:
True.
The majority of Christians belong to the Roman Catholic Church which has 1.285 billion members.
Modern Protestantism - (400-500 million members) is the largest protestantism denomination. This is various denominations of Pentecostals.
The 2nd largest Protestant denomination is the Baptists and, even ignoring the numerous divisions and viewing them as one denomination, there are between 300-400 million Baptists worldwide. The Southern Baptists only number 15.2 million.
Below is a link to Christian denomination by the numbers for the people who want to know if they belong to a Christian denomination that is followed by the majority of Christians worldwide.
It is clear that if the Roman Catholic Church is not the one true Christian church approved by Jesus that the majority of Christians are Hellbound if Yahweh is a judgmental god.
Frost, That's a rather lean, and a not accurate description of polar bears re; evolution. But what the real problem we have in explaining Darwin is the true concept of a loooooong time ago.
When evolution is discussed , we are talking about as much as 3.85 BILLION years. That is a very, very, very long time, and many people cannot begin to conceive how long ONE billion years take to pass, let alone almost 4 times that.
As evolution makes it's progress, physical and genetic changes in plants and animals takes place in a really very slow manner, taking maybe thousands of years to become apparent or effective. In a billion years, a few thousand years is not that long.
(There are many people on this planet that believe life began 6000 years ago)
You are suggesting that the only people in the entire planet that were worthy of not being murdered by God were the ones on the ark? From the forest dwellers in Africa to the Eskimos in the Arctic, and every newborn, toddler, and teenager on the planet everywhere was deemed guilty and worthy of execution? That is the most callous and irresponsible thing imaginable. Tell me, what did Satan ever do that could hold a candle to that level of Supreme evil?
That is very true.
We see stories that occur after storm and floods, about people saying how God saved them from dying.
Which indicates that God is rather sadistic otherwise this God would not have allowed the storm to happen in the first place.
I am quite aware of the length of time to evolve Jerry.
.
You click with me, Kathleen.
Of course Richard Dawkins, a humanist, makes "perfect" sense to you and other naturalists. That man is a bitter enemy of spirituality, so he runs to and fro trying to show up what he can not process and certainly won't take the time to try. What everyone should question about Richard Dawkins is how, like the religious leaders he professes to disapprove of, he manages to make millions off book sales, seminars, talks, movies, etceteras from the humanist community flocking to see him.
Did I just go there, yes I did. For Richard Dawkins, like Sam Harris, a fellow "laborer" is on the 'circuit' traveling around the world putting down religion while lifting humanism (and themselves) up. They work their "magic" by emphasizing the poorer qualities of spirituality and people of, while neglecting to give positive credit to all the good properties of spirituality and the faith community.
Bart Ehrman believes Jesus was a real person, flesh and blood, based on the thinnest of evidence. Where there should be volumes of evidence, there is only slight allusions to corroborating his existence. “So and so once wrote he met Jesus’s brother” is convincing to Bart, but it is terribly unconvincing to me, particularly in the absence of the volumes of writings that such ‘evidence’ should be a part of. Jesus was as common a name in that era as Mike is in this era. A reference to Jesus could have been to anyone named Jesus in that era.
Bart goes into great detail about the biblical inconsistencies regarding the origins of Jesus. Think about that - the one single source that is routinely championed in the arguments over Jesus’s origins, contradicts itself over and over and over about that very thing.
The fact that Bart Ehrman and you both agree that Jesus was a real person isn’t exactly helping your arguments for Jesus on any other level. I’m certain that you two are on opposite ends of the spectrum on every other Jesus narrative you endorse.
I am not vouching for B. Ehrman. You are. More importantly, I am curiously looking at your words as you vainly try to split Bart Ehrman from his words. Be reasonable. Either Ehrman is qualified to be a source of your negativism on Jesus or he is not. Take the whole loaf, or simply do not bother to quote the man.
The Abrahamic religions are all about domination by a supernatural being that sends out mixed messages that must be deciphered correctly in order to obey its rules in order to escape punishment by the submissive. If that wasn't bad enough, there are more would be leaders that are continually jockeying for positions of power using religion as their platform to justify how "special" they are. Ewww!!!!
When people actually forgive their supernatural sadist for killing their loved ones via storms, earthquakes, fires and then praise it for sparing them, I view them as having Stockholm Syndrome on steroids.
Please tell that to everyone who cherry picks the Bible.
Scoffers!
That is one problem. The other problem is that many do not want to accept evolution as valid.
Shouldn't that be a picture of Osama Bin Laden?
Where did the fair-skinned, blue-eyed Jesus come from?
"Believes." "Likely." "Organizer." "Motivator." Hal, is this humanist projection and stress reduction? You do not have faith in the text as written or its writers who were closer to the events, so you (and Ehrman) build a 'cover' story? How is what you (and Ehrman) are doing any different from say, President Trump, creating his own fabricated narratives? "Fake News!"
Only because that is how the god, Yahweh, designed his creatures in order to have something to torture.
Or it could be that is the premise of the man, who created the god, Yahweh, in order to control the people around him.
Who is the last human that Yahweh supposedly spoke with directly?
Speaking of evolution, this is in the news today...
Well Ken Ham, et. al. claim that science is incapable of establishing the age for anything. The only way, per Ham, et. al. to age something is to have an eyewitness who was there.
What is sad is that millions genuinely accept that nonsense, fold their arms, shake their heads and insist that science is wrong because the Bible defines a 6,000 year old Earth.
Indoctrination into a cult can be a difficult thing to overcome.
It can be observed in as little as fifty years.
really ? so why is there someone else who follows the same religion as you do but thinks that your god is completely different than you do ? i'm not trying to be snarky, i'm really just simply asking and shedding some light as to why many people ask so many questions of the religious and "don't seem to understand".
so which one of you is correct ?
question is: what should i believe ? if i claim to be a Christian - which God should i believe in ? don't you find it a bit odd that everyone who follows the same religion and are told about the same God all come up with different versions of this God ? i'm not trying to bash anyone's beliefs or anything of that nature and i don't hate Christians or any other religion, i'm just honestly asking how you resolve these inconsistencies and still put your belief into this system that is undefinable at best since everyone interprets it different and there's no uniform criteria.
i appreciate your thoughts and sentiments. i want to state that i'm not being snarky, nor snide, nor rude or anything of that nature - but in the last posting conversation we had you specifically stated you didn't wish to speak to me anymore and had me on a "mental ignore" list. with this reply - am i off this list and you are making amends ? or am i risking a COC violation by replying to you ?
i'm just honestly asking and not trying to be rude or anything of that nature.
so you seriously expect an Atheist to save your life (let's say he/she is an EMT or Doctor) while you still have the arrogance to condemn this person to be tortured for eternity because he/she doesn't lockstep with your line of thought or beliefs ? really ?
do you realize that you are actively advocating, promoting and spreading the word in hopes of recruiting for a system that will literally reward mass murderers with an eternal afterlife in heaven while torturing for eternity people who have done hundreds of good works in their life (including saving lives, making their community better, helping out neighbors etc) in hell ? its all because the mass murderer decided that your version of god was great, and just plays the "confession" and "repent" cards and gets to be rewarded for mass murdering people while someone who doesn't conform to your way of thinking and your beliefs gets to be tortured for eternity in hell even if they saved the lives of people like you. You think this is a good thing ?
don't tell me to "take it up with God" either - take personal responsibility for your role in all of this. You voluntarily daily align and stay with this system, promote it as the "truth" and hope to recruit others - of course if they don't "don a brownshirt" and conform to your line of thought then you gladly condemn them to be tortured for all of eternity for that. I think we've seen a few events in world history of this concept of "conform with my line of thought or die" and i'm quite sure you'll condemn those events, which is ironic since you live a life according to a system that does the exact same thing - and you think your system is a good thing. I'm not sure i'd classify it as a "good" thing to tell others - think like me or be tortured for all eternity - which is exactly what you are stating by being apart of that system (religion).
the best part ? now because i've questioned and exposed negativities in your religion - you'll now tell me that i hate religion (which i don't) or that maybe i'm a secret Christian (which i'm not) because i'm questioning your religion. All because i point out these things and question other things with this religion - i'll now be bombarded with replies that i hate religion or that i must love Muslims because i don't state the same thing about them (which is a weird defense that i've seen before on articles that talk specifically about Christianity and btw - i don't love the Muslim religion any more than i love the Christian religion) or that i'm trying to bash your beliefs (which i'm not, i could care less what you believe, i just want you to be honest about it and own up to it.) or that i'm trying to make you no longer believe in your god (which isn't true either, i could care less what you do or don't believe, but just be honest about it).
Can't answer for anyone else.
I described my God!
Like Lee Strobel and others?
Joel Osteen, the Bakers?
i understand for you that your beliefs are very personal etc (as you have stated on other articles), i'm just asking questions, not attacking you. thank you for answering me. I have many more questions, but don't want to possibly upset or offend you, thank you for your time.
I am quite aware of the length of time to evolve Jerry.
From your post I assume you are aware of evolution time frames Frost. I was just trying to create some additional clarification for other readers.
Which is just that - your god.
It is not the Yahweh that is worshipped in Evangelical churches that I had attended for decades.
In fact, it is not the Yahweh, nor is it the Yeshua that are in the Bible.
Yahweh is a vengeful and jealous god and Yeshua came to divide, not unite, humanity. This is in plain words, that do not require interpretation, in the Bible.
Not upset nor will you upset me.
Ask anything you want, but not so certain I can answer.
I thought so, but thank you for clarifying. I dislike seeing the fallout of misunderstandings on the internet.
My God is not vengeful nor jealous.
My God is shared with so many others just like me.
He and I have been through a lot together. It is His love that sustains me. I have seen and witnessed this love in so many ways.
why does your "version" (for lack of a better word) of god differ from another's who is a member of the same religion as you ? i understand that religion can be extremely personal, but there are some "traits" (for lack of a better word) that should be consistent in concerns to your god - for example (as on this thread) whether or not your god is judgemental or non-judgemental.
do you attend a formal church or do you worship privately ? (just out of curiosity, i have friends who are very religious and some don't attend churches and prefer to worship in their own homes) .. that's all i have time for right now, i have to go volunteer. i volunteer for a non-profit to enrich people's lives, they help disadvantaged women get back into the workforce, and even tho i do all this good work for others - i'm told by some of the religious people on this site that i'll be going to Hell and tortured for eternity simply because i don't lockstep with their thinking and beliefs concerning their god. Isn't it great ?
I have not. I'll check it out. Thanks.
Agreed.
I saw that report in an India Buzz report.
It is quite amazing.
Getty Images
Dinosaur eggs dating 130-million-years-old was unearthed by construction workers in China. They found the nest of the preserved dinosaur eggs in perfect condition at a construction site. Around 30 fossilised eggs were found in the city of Ganzhou which is known as ‘hometown of dinosaurs’ in China. The eggs were discovered on December 25 in Ganzhou’s Dayu County under the construction site of a middle school.
... not the God described in the Bible.
I am sincerely happy for you.
However, I will restate emphatically that your god is not the god, Yahweh/Yeshua, of the Bible.
You have created your own god as I once did when I called myself a Christian.
I read the Bible and then promptly put on ignore the violence and abominations committed by and for Yahweh. Beating and stoning children was acceptable and proscribed punishment by Yahweh....and other assorted rules that included the punishment for beating a slave to death.
At one time, I focused on only the positive "love" message, and ignored how it was being used to justify things that I find completely unacceptable - one of them being considered lessor than males and/or subservient to males. The Abrahamic religions are patriarchal religions based on male privilege. There is no place in my life that I find this to be positive.
Discarding all belief in the god of the Hebrews has been one of the most positive things that has ever happened in my life. I view every day as one of wonderment, renewal and peace. Well, at least as much as I can. I have wounds that will never heal from the mistreatment at the hands of Christians trying to make me know my "place" as a woman in a Christian society.
Yes.
My pre-teen granddaughter wants to be a geneticist and work on recreating small plant eating dinosaurs. LOL!
What cult are you talking about?
i don't mind you replying to my comments or replying back - i have no ill-will towards you. I just wanted clarification, that's all. have a good day.
It isn’t valid.
Man was created perfect as was this earth.
Not even a little.
That's nice. Prove it!
He makes sense because, as I said, his explanations are logical and well thought out. His ideology is irrelevant. So your implied bias on my part is without merit.
So questioning or challenging subjects or claims of a "spiritual" nature makes him an enemy? interesting.
Prof Dawkins has explicitly said he would be open to evidence and adjust his views accordingly. So your statement is incorrect.
It's called capitalism.
Is that supposed to mean anything?
No, they challenge outrageous claims made by religion. You seem to equate religion and spirituality.
I guess not.
A God was created to be vengeful and jealous to keep the masses "toeing the line" and to, also, explain phenomena that they had no other way of explaining. If something good happened, it was God. If something bad happened, it was God. So, if you don't want anything bad to happen you had better walk the line.
Our pain is here on earth....what you reap, you sow.
We are energy and we sustain that energy after death.
I am still a Christian. And, I glory in it everyday,
I was sent to the Baptist Church as a youth. My parents didn't go, but Mother sent us. I hated it. Everything was doom and gloom.....there was no happiness.
There was always something tugging on me, though. I started going to church, again, when I was 16 and driving. At 17, I acknowledged Jesus as my Savior. Never told anyone in my family. It was between me and God. It is still that way.
My encounters with God have been awesome.
P.S. On the male thing......you and I have different thoughts on that.
Mags, do you think your god is some super complex entity capable of having a unique connection with millions of people simultaneously, or do you think we were made in his image, meaning having one mind to deal with one situation at a time? 1.8 people on earth die every second - do you think he can handle that kind of volume, and still manage to create millions of unique individual experiences like yours at the same time?
Different strokes for different folks.
I would much rather be the CEO than the janitor.
I attend the Presbyterian Church which I have for many years. I, also, talk to Him many times a day. Like..."way to go"; "thanks"'; "sorry bout that"; "I will try to do better"; "please help .......", etc.
Our Rev. Matt is fantastic. He gives his sermon from his heart.
Good for you on the volunteer work. Our little world needs all the help it can get.
Yes.
Your position is that evolution is what ... a mass conspiracy of worldwide science? That the multi-disciplinary evidence and corroboration of same is all contrived? To what end?
There was a time long past when the men were expected to provide for their families and the ladies had babies and took care of the house.
The man's primary function was to protect and provide. At the time there were reasons for that. A man who couldn't provide for his family had no worth. A woman who was barren had no worth.
We have come a long way since then. However, a man's ego is still in place.
I come from a long line of strong women. My gr. grandmother had 13 children, plowed the fields with her husband and took care of the whole thing. So many stories there.
My granddaughter says she can do anything a man can do and I believe her.
It wasn’t a yes/no question.
you asked me two questions. Yes, to both of them.
Not all societies were patriarchal.
As far as men being the protectors - the main thing men had to protect women from were other men. It is ridiculous that women were treated as a commodity and breeding stock in a male controlled society where a women had little to no power to earn her own living or even to choose their husband.
As far as the male ego, I have no interest in having to pander to a man with a fragile ego inside or outside of my home. I have absolutely no interest in manipulating men for personal gain, but especially with false flattery or bartering with my body. I find this type of thinking to be repugnant and damaging to everyone involved. All of my life, successful women have been accused of screwing their way to the top because of the patriarchal propaganda prevalent in US society that women were not qualified to hold leadership positions.
I have had to deal with the "Me Tarzan, you Jane" personalities all of my life because I was born in a country with too many men with fragile egos.
They can’t both be yes. It’s one or the other.
The Cherokee people for one were/are a Matriarchal society. Women have always been the holder or all property in a marriage. She was the head of the household and chose the way the family would live, in accordance with the laws of the Tribe. Men and women were treated as equals, and many women were Warriors, hunters and served as leaders on the Tribal Councils. In the case of a divorce, the woman merely set the mans personal belongings outside the home and that was that. The marriage was ended and all the man were his belongings. All property and children remained with the woman.
I am not sure about other Tribes, but, the Cherokee have been a Matriarchal society of thousands of years.
Not so true on the protection from other men.
Don't know about your family, but parts of my family were here from the early 1700's. There was much to protect their families from least of which were other men.
I love men, particularly, those who worked their asses off for their families. I love women for working their asses off for their families.
In days gone by there weren't many jobs for women unless they took in other people's laundry, ironed their clothes or worked cleaning houses.
There, also, wasn't much education going around for men or women.
My God has seen me through some really rough times. He has, also, been with me during my really good times.
Yes
Orange.
If you say so.
I don't know about other Tribes, but if the Europeans had learned from the Cherokee to include women in government and society as equals, our society today would be leading the world by example instead of force.
You led me to believe that we’ve switched to just talking nonsense.
If you want to engage in conversation, then, do so without leading questions which you can pounce on thinking you have the upper hand.
Agreed.
Thankfully, things have changed drastically. I am hoping that within a decade that women have eliminated the gap in pay disparity.
Maybe, eventually men will even quit trying to legislate our uterus.
So you will debate, so long as you aren’t asked any questions. Lol.
Ben Carson Leads Trump Cabinet in Prayer for Tax Cuts and “Courageous” President
December 28, 2017 | At the request of President Donald Trump, Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson led the president and his cabinet in a prayer on December 20.
Carson, who is an Adventist, thanked God for “unity in Congress,” a “courageous” president as well as for an “opportunity for our economy to expand so that we can fight the corrosive debt that has been destroying our future.”
A CNBC report on Carson’s prayer called it “overtly political” due to the fact that Carson had thanked God for the “unity” between Republicans in the House and Senate that made possible the massive US tax cut announced this month. Carson prayed for the unity to “spread even beyond party lines, so that people recognize we have a nation that is worth saving.”
CNBC asserted that economists dispute the claim that the GOP tax cuts will help fight the national debt. The report says that tax policy institutes across America predict the cuts will instead add over a trillion dollars to the national debt over 10 years.
Carson’s prayer is included in full below:
Our kind Father in heaven, we’re so thankful for the opportunities and the freedom that you’ve granted us in this country. We thank you for the president and for Cabinet members who are courageous, who are willing to face the winds of controversy in order to provide a better future for those who come behind us. We’re thankful for the unity in Congress, that presented an opportunity for our economy to expand, so we can fight the corrosive debt that has been destroying our future. And we hope that that unity will spread even beyond party lines, so that people recognize we have a nation that is worth saving. And nations divided against themselves cannot stand. In this time of discord, distrust and dishonesty, we ask that you will give us a spirit of gratitude, compassion and common sense. And give us the wisdom to be able to guide this great nation in the future. We ask in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen.
Carson drew considerable political attention when, as the keynote speaker for the 2013 National Prayer breakfast, he used his speech to criticize Obamacare in the presence of then-president Barack Obama.
He went on to launch an unsuccessful bid for the United States presidency, running as a Republican candidate in 2016. https://atoday.org/ben-carson-leads-trump-cabinet-in-prayer-for-courageous-president-and-tax-cuts/
I personally think that in fairness to women, women should have the right to legislate men's penises. What they can and can't do with them and in what way. Take away their choices and deny them the right to have a vasectomy for any reason.
IMHO, if men were treated the same as they treat women they would soon change their way of thinking of women as chattel that they can dictate to, even if they are not married to them. No man, not even if I was married, has the right to tell me what I can and can't do with my own body. Agreed, not all men think like that, but, they seem to be in the minority.
Just my own opinion.
Why are you asking?
Totally agree.
My precious sister without a college degree 25 years ago worked herself up to #3 in her company. Her daughter with no college degree and after being a stay at home mom worked herself up to being Customer Service VP for her company. It takes brains and dedication in any field man or woman.
It is not man vs woman always. I stayed home for 30 years, but during that time, I ran for public office, set up a foundation for special needs children, broke up a drug ring, coached and refereed soccer, raised two sons, and I give my husband accolades for recognizing me as an intelligent woman.
Women have as many opportunities these days.
No, don't try to BS me.
So that’s how god does it? Multi-tasking? He can communicate with one million people at the same time individually, but he can’t speak to two people at the same time together? Does that sound realistic to you?
Soap.
So he should be able to tell you and I the same thing at the same time!!!!
should spend their lives pursing interests that bring them pleasure and fulfillment. This may or may not include men or children.
In today's world, women have the opportunity to pursue and achieve their dreams and be choosy about who they share their talents with.
If we make wise choices, then we make our own homes safer which will ripple into our communities and beyond. We should not waste our lives fighting with anyone and certainly must quit tolerating being verbally and physically abused by men ever.
I don't find pleasure in mimicking the alpha male mentality of legislating other people to achieve dominance and control of their lives from cradle to birth or of harming anyone.
Although I have to admit that I grinned when I read your comment. :o)
That's what I mean. Sarcasm with no substance.
If you want a serious conversation, I am here, otherwise take it to someone else who can tolerate it.
Coddling weak faith isn't our responsibility.
If faith can't stand up to criticism, perhaps the basis for that faith needs further examination.
When some Christians insist that theirs is the only true way to not be damned to Hell forever, then they'd better be able to back it up - and that includes proving that there's even a Hell to fear. From where I sit, it looks like a scam - one that has been quite profitable for many, and one which has excused abhorrent behavior by many.
So, if you're going to proselytize, expect some pushback, or at the very least, expect that you'll be required to provide evidence before you're believed. If that pushback or questioning is a stumblingblock for those rational enough to question their faith, so be it.
How convenient for him, and for every Christian who squirms at answering that question.
Serious conversation with you? Are you joking? Just review your attempt at discussion above. It’s like talking to a myna bird.
Kudos to you and your family.
Our society has always benefited from the work ethic of women, but our society and our history books have largely ignored them.
That was awesome. Amazing video, hopeful and frightening at the same time.
Just what I expected. Bingo!
Yeah....that was meant more tongue in cheek, but, it is time that a good many men in this country woke up to the idea that women do have rights as a human being, and that her body does not belong to anyone other than herself, and most especially, not to men who they are not married to or even know. Women are no longer being raised as chattel to men, that went out in the early 1900's. However, there seems to be a slow learning curve with a lot of men in the country who either refuse to acknowledge it, or are still being taught that women a merely to be controlled by men.
And having lived through 8 years of Hell as a verbally, emotionally and physically abused wife, and faced near death after one beating, I can only agree with you on the abuse part. I don't hate men, there are a lot of really good men around, so I don't want to use a broad brush in that way. There are a lot of men who truly love their mates and would never think of abusing them. But, unfortunately, there are still men who consider women inferior.
My hat is off to all the men who know how to treat women with courtesy and respect. You are truly role models for those to come after you.
Agreed. He also stated atheists have no morals and they think it's okay to fornicate in the street, etc. just because atheists have no belief in God. Faith or lack of faith does not determine morality, ethics or integrity.
Absolutely. Women are awesome!
But, we are not awesome when we compete with a man on his terms. We are women and we bring to the table what a man can't.
We know what it is to birth a baby, nurse the baby, clean house, grocery shop, cook, and climb into bed at night bone weary and our husband's want love. We have been there and done that.
Nothing is impossible for us to achieve. Nothing that our grandmothers didn't do and they did it for us.
Ehrman is fluid in Aramaic, and has had the extremely rare opportunity to review ancient manuscripts that are universally accepted to be some of the most original pieces of biblical scripture in existence. They are inconsistent with one another, and significantly different from what the Bible looks like today. That unique perspective is literally what flipped his faith.
This book that Christians axiomatically consider to be the infallible word of God himself, has been clearly shown to be the result of massive edits, alterations, and omissions - by scribes, rulers, and who knows who else through time. You can read his books if you want to learn more, I’m not about to get into a full dissertation on him here.
I remember a conversation back on NV in which a man advocated that, instead of educating women, women should focus on being more pleasing to men, in order to achieve financial security. He complained that, unlike women he encountered in some more regressive nations, American women wouldn't do things like bathe him and flatter him.
As you can imagine, there were quite a few Viners who came down pretty hard on him, and I was among them. For having the nerve to assert that I, like most women, was capable of financially supporting myself, I was told that I needed to be on psychiatric medication.
Another Viner found that this guy was selling a self-published book supporting the same views. The comments on the link were...disturbing. Some women bought into his crap - they really thought that women would be happier if they just accepted that they were made to pander to men, and started doing so in the hopes that men who need women pandering to them would turn out to be stand-up guys and support them.
Wow. It's almost 2018 but the text of your post is straight out of the 1950"s
I don't know if that is the same guy who told me that today's women needed men to be their protectors. I told him that I did not want to live in a world where I required an armed guard to grocery shop. Our online friendship ended and he left NV shortly thereafter.
In 1983, a Marine told me that worst mistake he ever made was marrying an American woman because they were too "uppity". I believe he told me that he was on his 2nd marriage with a prostitute from the Philippines.
Thank you. The '50's were great so I heard.
In a perfect world, those women would hook up with their Sir Galahad wanna be and move to Camelot where the damsel in distress can live in an ivory tower while her knight slays imaginary dragons for her.
In the meantime, it is best for the rest of us to avoid the needy children inhabiting grown male bodies.
I'm not sure. It seems to me that you weren't on the Vine at the time, but I can't remember for sure, and he was a sporadic contributor.
Another winner was his article proposing the "dumbing down" of math curricula in American schools, cuz math is hard.
Child, indeed.
Actually, I am sorry for the women who live like that. It is mind-numbing drudgery. Which is why the women, who can afford it, will often hire other women to do menial tasks.
If I won the lottery, I don't even want a house over 1200 sq feet, but the one thing I would do is to hire someone else to clean it. I absolutely loathe cleaning house. My husband sweeps and mops the floors.
I have never been a fan of children. They are constantly getting into things, asking endless questions and are rarely satisfied with the answers. A person would think that they would all become scientists if they could maintain the drive that they had as children, but usually their parents, teachers and religious leaders manage to teach them to quit questioning anything. Now if they could only teach them to quit lying, stealing and hitting.
I do like to cook.
Mankind was created innocent. Much like the animals of the field. All were innocent. Mankind rebelled.
I was a young child then but it seemed pretty good for me.
Do you wear glasses or know people who wear glasses? Our eyes are far from perfect.
We enjoy sweets, even crave them at times, but they rot our teeth and contribute to diseases (like diabetes). Is that perfect?
We need protective clothing, shelter, tools and technology to survive in all but a handful of climates around the world. Is that perfect?
Our joints wear out. Our backs ache. Our skin burns in the sun (some more than others, of course). Is that perfect?
Even one of the most basic and universal attributes of all life on earth, reproduction, can be a serious and dangerous ordeal for us. Childbirth is almost always painful, and can sometimes be deadly. More so in the past, before modern medicine, but still. Is that perfect?
What is your point?
Your dodge is duly noted.
Based on what exactly? If you have evidence which discredits evolution, lets see it. That would be big news in the scientific community. You might even win a Nobel. As it is, there is no such evidence. And I highly doubt you can discredit evolution in the slightest.
Galatians 6: (NLT)
7 Don’t be misled—you cannot mock the justice of God. You will always harvest what you plant. 8 Those who live only to satisfy their own sinful nature will harvest decay and death from that sinful nature. But those who live to please the Spirit will harvest everlasting life from the Spirit. 9 So let’s not get tired of doing what is good. At just the right time we will reap a harvest of blessing if we don’t give up. 10 Therefore, whenever we have the opportunity, we should do good to everyone—especially to those in the family of faith.
Magnoliaave! We can not pretend or delude ourselves into not seeing the words on the pages of the Bible. If God discloses to us that Spirit differentiates between people, then so be it! To 'invent' a Holy One of our own liking is to hold up high a myth; to make a mockery of God!
You presume the Bible is the word of God. Chances are rather good that your presumption is wrong. (I can back up my assessment.)
Are you really giving Mag good advice?
I can not respect anyone who tries to divide people from the good they can do for themselves and others. I will always treat people well (as it lies within me), but respect deceptive troublemakers, no.
And include yourself in the "choice selection" category, mocowgirl. I have read your blistering assaults on the Old and New Testaments and let you tell it all the main characters have horns and tails! But no matter God would not be much of Spirit if God could not handle the persecution and hatred of scoffers.
Why would I hate Zeus, Apollo, Odin, Yahweh or any other mythical god that some man created in their own image?
Not believing in a mythical creature does not equal being a scoffer since no one is born believing in a god. We are usually assigned a belief system by our parents who were assigned their belief system by their parents.
How does a person "persecute a god"?
Revised Standard Version name tells you there have been changes
I guess it isn’t the inerrant and infallible word of God then.
I have to back Gordy on this one Shepboy. Quite a few intellectual challenges posed to you by me over the months across numerous articles remain unanswered. While it is fine with me if you choose to not reply, your choice to not reply is evidenced fact.
We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity. . . . Hal, this is from Humanist Manifesto III. So you come into a religion and ethics category and mock people and declare what? Note to self: Check if NT has an open Humanist Group or Atheist category.
Has Hal ever claimed to be a Humanist?
Nobody is forcing you to comment here.
You came to an article posted by an atheist, about theistic denial or inability to grasp evolution, and expected it to be friendly to theists?
Whomever. It does not matter. If a person is exploiting other people, he or she is an exploiter. Just be sure you judge each person correctly. Do try not to get into making false equivalences, nevertheless. Let the truth separate evil-doers, exploiters, and deceivers from those seeking to offer plain truth. No. Matter. Who. It. Be. (Clear enough, my friend?)
Happy New Year 2018!
Not taunting, just simple observation and fact.
Hal! You're up. Are you a humanist? Please proceed. . . .
I saw where Hal and OSM were suspended two days. I may be wrong, however.
how did you come to know your god and know that he is the only god for you, especially considering the myriad of gods who have their own followers, legends etc ? were you taught in a church or did you have a deeply personal experience or something of that nature ? (i don't need specifics, just curious as to your thought process or experience that led you to become a worshipper of your god)
thank you for the compliment on the volunteer work, its something i enjoy doing and have been doing for over 5 years, its very rewarding to help others in my opinion
i'm told that religion can be a very personal thing and i'm also told that many of the religious are tired of being "mocked" yet you are here stating that another poster can't have a personal relationship with her god as she sees fit and you are mocking her as well. is this more of that "Christian Love" i keep hearing about ?
Dawkins, like all humanists, insists on arguing on their terms in debate.
Critical thinking, Logic, and Spirituality are distinct categories of knowing. They are separate disciplines . Humanists here should know this. For instance, in world religions we hold to knowledge gathered from places and times now well beyond or largely beyond supplying verifiable evidence, but we can experience these truths all the same by leading lives along the paths these others have trotted out. And God, having declared the 'church age' to be an era of faith, (see John 4:48 below) is not inclined to oblige humanists/atheists/naturalists (Aka. scoffers ) with an appearance.
John 4: 48 Jesus asked, “Will you never believe in me unless you see miraculous signs and wonders?”
24 But Thomas, one of the Twelve, the one called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord.” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the mark of the nails, and put my finger into the mark of the nails, and put my hands into His side, I will never believe.” 26 And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them, the doors having been shut. Jesus comes, and He stood in the midst and said, “Peace to you.” 27 Then He says to Thomas, “Bring your finger here, and see My hands; and bring your hand, and put it into My side; and be not unbelieving, but believing.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”
29 Jesus says to him, “Because you have seen Me, you have believed; blessed are those not having seen, yet having believed.”
Humanists today, would call "signs and wonders" evidence . And since none are expected to come in this era, humanists exploit this absence through insistence upon it. It is a ploy. Have you not observed in these long exacerbating 'talks' which humanists are insistent on being a part of their first salvos are nearly always: "That's great you love God! Now show us your evidence ." It is a deceptive ploy. A head-fake!
So here's Dawkins (a cameraman in tow) before this church leader (who later felt hard in his flesh) demanding he give him not a reasoned explanation of his faith, but evidence of God. (I am going from memory of seeing this. No time to rewatch the video above right now.) It is a setup. A flim-flam activity.
Plainly put, the demand for evidence is designed to steer the entire discussion onto a humanist "plateau" and perspective for which they will never step out of - even though they are debating people of faith! Bible-toting, scripture-speaking, God-suffering people.
Humanist do not argue faith. They do care about the supernatural. If you scrutinize their writing patters closely, you will see they do not assent to the positive aspects of religion. Of course, there is always the "token," "the gimme" exception to the rule. It is all about emphasizing the negative, even to the ng degree.
In addition, such conduct is wrong and unfair to the storied history of spirituality in this world. Specifically, all the good godly people have done to make the world the safe place it is today.
For people who insist they are fair-minded and have high integrity, some humanists are not even true to their own arguments. For they become militants and belligerents when communicating with people of faith. Proverbially, causing even a "preacher to curse."
Christians make a category mistake to argue on humanists 'grounds;' against humanists 'talking points,' alone. Because faith in God has its own category and humanists find that 'area' distasteful enough to never set foot into it.
Like you, I have always volunteered to help others.
I don't know. I just had a talk with Him as I am deeply troubled and don't know where to turn. Don't know where it will lead me.
My life as an adult was filled with travelling the world, raising two sons, living in two countries, money, but the one time that I deviated, I deviated from His grace. I knew better. There is no hell after life. There is hell on this earth. In spite of it all, My God is love. I know His love, but I have to repent for my sin here.
i think that's wonderful and i'm very happy to hear it !
i'm assuming this was done through prayer ?
sounds like you have led a great life and probably have had some amazing experiences
my next question - we know that god itself isn't verified nor unverified (not proven one way or the other) and i'm not here to prove nor disprove (please keep that in mind). we have a lot of other entities that are in the same category - not proven nor disproven, they have legends and stories associated with them, people who have strongly held beliefs in them etc... so what was the criteria for you that you used that your god was able to garner your belief and faith in him, as opposed to "knowing" other entities (like Leprechauns, Unicorns, Zeus, Horus, Odin, Faeries etc) don't exist ?
I hope you are not just humoring me with your questions. When you mention unicorns, etc. I do wonder.
But, I am going to take for your word that you are truly interested.
Is that right?
A reasoned faith would require evidence of that in which it has faith. Otherwise it can't be called "reasoned". Unless you're rewriting the dictionary. Again.
When you can show that it exists, we'll care. Until then, why should we? Any more than you care about those supernatural Greek gods?
I find repeated false claims of persecution and accusations of sophistry to be belligerent. You find asking for evidence for your claims to be belligerent. It seems you're trying to rewrite the definition of the word "belligerent".
IMPASSE.
Good Lord!
i am truly interested. Look at it logically - Unicorns are mystical magical creatures, they can't be verified if they exist and they can't be disproven either, there are legends about them in many books and there are many people who truly believe they do exist and Unicorns were worshipped (and could still be):
and i can tell by your response that you think they are a silly fantasy and are sure they don't exist.
that further solidifies my original question to you:
we know that god itself isn't verified nor unverified (not proven one way or the other) and i'm not here to prove nor disprove (please keep that in mind). we have a lot of other entities that are in the same category - not proven nor disproven, they have legends and stories associated with them, people who have strongly held beliefs in them etc... so what was the criteria for you that you used that your god was able to garner your belief and faith in him, as opposed to "knowing" other entities (like Leprechauns, Unicorns, Zeus, Horus, Odin, Faeries etc) don't exist ?
i'm not trying to mock you or humor you or anything of that nature.
What?
Has evidence been presented?
No.
Have we had an insistence that we consider the possibility of the existence of one person's god, while calling the possibility of existence of another person's gods "sophistry"?
Yes.
Does either have more supporting evidence than the other?
No.
But we're supposed to just accept that, and overlook insults aimed at those who know the difference between evidence and fancy?
Not gonna happen.
I don't know if unicorns exist. They might.
I know that God exists. At 17 He entered my life. Not as He is today, but He was there and everyday.
Do you have any idea what it is like for a young girl of 17 to receive God in their life without even telling anyone? He has travelled with me all these years.
Happy New Year to you. I am off to bed.
thank you for answering my questions as best as you could, i do appreciate it
Happy New Year to you ! i hope its a great year filled with many positive things for you and your family !
I don't care.
Oh excuse me. I forgot. Humanists, who abhor supernaturalism and worldreligions do indeed profess to having holistic "inner experiences," that are valuable and analyzable. I guess that can be considered spiritual?
Hi Phoenyx13, I am sorry that you take exception to what I wrote, but I hope Magnoliaave understands the message in my words and the gentle heart I possess. Honesty is the best policy. All any of us can do is our best across these vast distances trying to communicate deep and abiding thoughts and words. Ultimately Magnoliaave, has the final word about her beliefs (as any one of us). I have no problem at all with this.
i hope that poster doesn't take offense, but your post was offensive in my opinion. You don't know if your viewpoint is any more honest (or truthful) than hers - that's part of the point. There's no uniform criteria - if there were then that poster would believe in the exact same version of your god that you believe in and there wouldn't be hundreds (or thousands according to some) different sects of Christianity - all complete with slightly different versions of their god and beliefs.
you are simply forcing your own version of your god onto others and claiming it as the actual fact concerning your god when in reality - you really don't know and the poster you addressed could actually be absolutely correct with her version of her god.
I am not about to research the entire series of Ehrman books at this instance. Safe to say you believe him. So there goes the mantra, 'Freethinkers, don't need other people to (help) think for them." Besides, Ehrman is not the only translator or scholar who has an opinion for or against the Bible. I read the New Testament predominately because it witnesses to my spirit . Something apparently, Bart Ehrman as of yet (if ever) has not accomplished. Though, there is still time as long as he is above the ground.
Romans 8: 15 So you have not received a spirit that makes you fearful slaves. Instead, you received God’s Spirit when he adopted you as his own children. Now we call him, “Abba, Father.” i 16 For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God’s children. 17 And since we are his children, we are his heirs. In fact, together with Christ we are heirs of God’s glory. But if we are to share his glory, we must also share his suffering.
"For his Spirit joins with our spirit to affirm that we are God’s children." This is something written down by ancient men as a writer here likes to put it out there. And, still it reached the hearts and minds of men and women anew in the 21st century. Why? It can not reach you in your natural man state, because you are not open to spiritual discernment, its message, or anything to do with it:
1 Corinthians 2:14 (KJV)
14 But the natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
And there is not a whole lot I can do about that, except keep sharing what I believe in. The same as those men and women from more than two thousand years ago.
I explained my reasons to you plainly and with sincerity. All we have is what we give in many cases. Happy New Year!
The demand of evidence is a reasonable and logical expectation, especially when it comes to extraordinary claims like those for a god. Of course, theists consistently fail to provide evidence of any kind. They proclaim faith or belief as good enough. But there is nothing logical or rational about that, and it certainly doesn't prove anything.
Why am I not surprised?
What "inner experiences" are you referring? And humanists dont necessarily abhor the supernatural. They simply don't buy into it and generally require evidence of such things. Not surprisingly, there is no such evidence.
Not a surprise at all.
Skirting the CoC [ph]
I read the New Testament predominately because it witnesses to my spirit. Something apparently, Bart Ehrman as of yet (if ever) has not accomplished. Though, there is still time as long as he is above the ground.
You really should do a tiny amount of research before you make nonsense comments.
“Ehrman grew up in Lawrence, Kansas, and attended Lawrence High School, where he was on the state champion debate team in 1973. He began studying the Bible and the Biblical languages at Moody Bible Institute, where he earned the school's three-year diploma in 1976.[1] He is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois, where he received his bachelor's degree. He received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied under Bruce Metzger. He received magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985.[2]”
There’s plenty more of his background on his wiki page. You probably should read it so that you can stop embarrassing yourself by making utterly misinformed comments about him. He is a former hardcore evangelical.
I’m an atheist. I don’t label myself beyond that.
Perrie suspended us in error. After several emails she finally realized she made a mistake.
This is true. Both Hal and OSM have been reinstated. It was my bad.
You do not need to worry your mind about me embarrassing myself, my brother. In 2015, I was introduced to Professor Ehrman and his videos, so I am not un-versed in his background or achievements. He is formidable, aggressive in his pronouncements, and prolific in his writings and interviews. Still, it is interesting that you lavish your support of Professor Ehrman, while denying his claim that Jesus (the Messiah) was an actual living and breathing person. You will declare that your prerogative, and you are right it is.
But let's be extremely clear about one thing. The only reason why you bring up Professor Ehrman is because he writes in some support of your disbelief. While at the same time you ignore or utterly bash any other thinkers and writers who support the opposing view.
You do not need to worry your mind about me embarrassing myself, my brother. 2018, humanism is going to be my big project on social media, one way or the other.
If Jesus is not divine, and was just a regular guy, then what difference does it make whether he actually existed or not? You’re trying to make some point that my arguments are flawed unless I adopt everything that Bart Ehrman espouses, and considering my views as cherry picked. That is just plain stupid.
Jesus was not a divine being. That is all that really matters. If sufficient proof is uncovered that somehow shows Jesus was an actual person, I’ll say great, I was wrong and Jesus was a real person. However, he will always be not divine. He was just a guy who was used as a tool to advance a fake narrative and build a religion to control the masses.
I don't know. She says she can do anything. I'll ask her to try!
On the other hand, I might not mention it to her.
so i'm guessing you really didn't understand my reply... and its not very shocking.. Happy New Year to you as well !
Okay. Hal, are you a New Atheist and do you believe in evidentialism?
The New Testament is not written to unbelievers. It is written to people of faith and explorers of faith. You expressly are in neither camp! We proclaim faith, because we are classified as "People of Faith!"
It is a category mistake for you to enter the Religion and Ethics category and demand science and logic disciplines. Science and Logic do not 'war' with Faith. Humanists are waging this fight under the banner of Humanism! As for those wayward Christians who are attempting to dominate humanists in our society, that is bad on them and humanists need to deal with it in the appropriate government systems. Not try to undermine and abolish faith and world religions.
Incidentally, has it ever entered into your mind that when Jesus states the righteous are justified by faith that he meant it to occur literally? Even Jesus birth was low-key and 'hidden' from the unbelieving world near and far.
New Living Translation
Romans 1:17
This Good News tells us how God makes us right in his sight. This is accomplished from start to finish by faith. As the Scriptures say, "It is through faith that a righteous person has life."
Lol I'm doubtful the star going supernova above his crib helped with that.
I’m an atheist. I don’t label myself beyond that, and I’m not interested in philosophy.
Humanist Manifesto III -- a successor to the Humanist Manifesto of 1933
Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism , affirms our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good of humanity.
The lifestance of Humanism—guided by reason, inspired by compassion, and informed by experience—encourages us to live life well and fully. It evolved through the ages and continues to develop through the efforts of thoughtful people who recognize that values and ideals, however carefully wrought, are subject to change as our knowledge and understandings advance.
This document is part of an ongoing effort to manifest in clear and positive terms the conceptual boundaries of Humanism, not what we must believe but a consensus of what we do believe. It is in this sense that we affirm the following:
1. Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence .
Good point. Well, aside from that! Happy New Year!
wHATEVER yOU sAY, hAL!! I shoULD beliEVE yOU abOVE aND beYOND aLL elSE.
Can you tell me why I should believe you again? Professor B. Ehrman says Jesus existed. You have no reason to distrust Ehrman or think that he would deceive you, Hal. Yet you do . . . have doubt. wHY iS thAT, Hal?
I have a brain, and I think for myself. What I can’t do is read Aramaic and Hebrew, nor do I have access to ancient biblical manuscripts. Ehrman does. I trust his knowledge on those subjects. On the subject of Jesus’s existence, that is anyone’s opinion, it is not knowledge. I don’t need to blindly follow anyone’s opinion.
btw, is there something wrong with your keyboard?
You have a penchant for using Bible quotes in an attempt to justify your vision of the truth of Christianity. That is called circular reasoning.
Nothing anymore is very shocking at all, Phoenyx13. (Smile.)
Well, just so you are aware your comments, READ LIKE THE WRITINGS IN HUMANIST MANIFESTO III. You should really look it over. It may be like looking into a mirror!!
You're a "free-thinker"? Oh now I get it. Me too! (Smile.)
Hal, what I justify is my faith. Faith is what Christians have and it is according to God's plan. You do not have faith in God, so you do not go to the Bible. You do not understand or accept our faith, and yet you wish to aid humanists in eliminating it based on weak arguments like Jesus (The Messiah) is a myth (when Professor B. Ehrman, a modern historian you follow, says he does.
Wow, you’re really stuck on the whole issue of whether Jesus the human existed or not, when the real issue that matters is whether Jesus the divine son of God existed or not. You can’t see the forest through the trees.
i can agree with you on that statement
Nope, not stuck on it. Just clarifying the point made in the Bible and supported strongly by Atheist-leaning Professor B. Ehrman. Oh, it's 2018, condescension and namecalling are going to be so over-rated this year!
What are you talking about? The only point supported by both the Bible and Bart Ehrman is that Jesus was not a mythical being. Whoop-de-doo. I think you won't let that go because it's all you have. What if I said okay, I have seen the light and I now agree with 100% of what Bart Ehrman says. Then Bart and I would agree that Jesus was a real human being, and that he was not divine, was not born of a virgin, and did not die for the sins of humanity. Would that make you feel better? Can you move on from there?
So you moved the goal posts. That's convenient. If God is perfect, why didn't he make Man perfect?
Hmmmm.
Are you aware that atheists do not have prophets in the atheist community?
Just because someone says that they are an atheist, it does not mean that we endorse or follow their viewpoints.
Atheists do not have a rule book of things we should not do so we can ignore them, and then demand that society forgives us because we have a supernatural buddy who will torture everyone who doesn't give us a free pass for doing whatever we want to in life.
That is going to be wonderful.
It will be wonderful not to be subjected to the label of 'sinner" from some holier than thou prophet condescending to "save" mankind for his supernatural being.
I think it is safe to deem Professor Ehrman an agnostic atheist. So Professor Ehrman is a renowned agnostic atheist who is convinced Jesus (at least a mortal man behind the legend) did indeed exist and was crucified (and died). He is not convinced that Jesus was anything other than a human being.
His argument that a human being known as Jesus lived and was crucified is interesting. It could easily be true - there have always been charismatic individuals out rallying people with their words. The problem I have with this stuff is that we are always trying to piece together a fabric from a few isolated threads. Both sides on the question of 'was there a human being named Jesus behind the legend?' have such little evidence to go on, they could debate forever.
But the existence of a charismatic human being behind the story is not really that valuable. What is valuable is evidence that the Son hypostasis existed(s). The claim of Christ - the claim of being God - is about as magnificent a claim as can be made. How interesting it would be to find any evidence that even remotely approaches support for such a claim.
Spare me your projection. I am well beyond such activity. We can move on, because you casually stated this significant sentence, and I quote:
It is the only admission needed in this session of discussion. For the longest of times on this article you were in denial of even qualifying this much. I would thank you at this point, but none is appropriate. It is still not clear at all if you internalize Jesus ("the man") lived in the first century! All the same. here's to proverbially "pulling teeth" and moving on. . . .
Both sides on the question of 'was there a human being named Jesus behind the legend?' have such little evidence to go on, they could debate forever.
Exactly. This is why I don't believe he existed, nor do I care, as it doesn't really matter whether he was made up of whole cloth or was fraudulently exalted. The fact that nobody wrote him into the historical record (to any significant extent) until decades after he was crucified, only supports the conclusion that he couldn't have been more than a run of the mill trouble maker who pissed off the wrong people and met his end as a result.
To be clear, that should have read "not a mythical human being". Ehrman does not assign any super-human qualities to Jesus, he was just a charismatic human who preached.
Add the word, "yet" and I might agree with you at that point. All things in due time. As it stands today, as you and others kindly explain it when you do take the time, Christianity is the "big fish" in the world's most prosperous nation and other world religions largely dominate the remaining world order. Humanists have a long-term strategy for displacing religion and faith with itself within several necessary generations. Shall you not remember your "heroes," like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, late great Christopher Higgins, Daniel Dennett and worthy others once you complete ascension to the top?
Well, first-place has its pluses and its minuses, don't you know. There is always some outfit just over the horizon either striving to get back its "stuff" or rising up to knock the "top" off its pedestal. Additionally, there are the essential organizational survival instincts which will automatically kick in. That is, at some point, in a vibrant and mixed community of progressive humanists ideologies, ideas, and individual efforts, factions invariably will evolve with internal yearnings, and from there well, I think you get the big picture. It should take several indefinite generations for persistent young humanists to bring about.
I don't need or have heroes in the scientific community.
It is the Abrahamic faiths that are using any straw that they can find to denounce all knowledge that shows the basis of their religions for the myth that it is.
Evolution completely exposes Genesis for the myth that it is. Science is continually making new discoveries that force the leaders of the Abrahamic religions to move their religious goalposts to keep anyone outside of the scientific illiterate in their religious fold.
I can understand the hysterics of the people who need the Christian religion to solidify their power base or to justify their mistreatment of others. Religion began as a way to control people who were gullible enough to believe the stories told by the more intelligent person seeking power over other people. The men speaking for a "god" were beyond scrutiny for far too long.
If society depends on gullible people believing that a supernatural being is constantly spying on them and keeping score of their transgressions then it is not working out well for the ones with a majority of citizens who believe in the Abrahamic faiths. These countries have a history of violence, violence and more violence along with corruption, corruption and more corruption.
As far as decent people who need a buddy who loves them so they aren't lonely, those people aren't a problem as long as their buddy isn't telling them to hang, burn, torture or control the lives of others.
Well, an unknown quote puts it this way: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Humanists heavily wander into the Religion and Ethics category and are vexed by the mere mention of God, Jesus, Spirit, Faith, Sin, Deliverance, and Resurrection. All of these are sacred matters and spirtiual relics. Please do not tell us:
' You're shocked. SHOCKED. To discover there is spirituality going on in here !'
Read more at:
Read more at:
Read more at:
Read more at:
Read more at:
It’s Hitchens, not Higgins.
I am an ignostic. Define what you mean by a "god" and then we can debate/discuss if it is logical or reasonable to believe it exists.
When it comes to the "god" called Yahweh, I am well versed in its supposed powers and limitations and why it is logical to put it in the myth category with all of the tens of thousands of gods that men have worshipped since men invented mythical beings to control their fellow humans and/or explain nature.
If religious folk want to spread fiction as fact in public venues, then expect to be challenged.
If religious folk attempt to force fiction into government laws, then that is nothing new in history, but that does not mean that it should be allowed in the US.
is being awed at the existence of living and the wonderment of the beauty around us.
Understanding evolution does nothing to diminish spirituality. Hopefully, it is a cure for believing the fearmongering that we must believe that Yahweh created us as disgusting creatures that required a blood sacrifice to be less disgusting to it.
Yahweh is actually a disgusting god in that it required animal sacrifice and found killing and burning animals to be "pleasing". This is not what I would call spiritual.
You can think whatever. it seems to keep you vibrant. (Smile.)
No disrespect to Mr. Hitchens, recently departed. And yes, I know the correct spelling of his name. I positively did not mean to misspell or diminish him in any way. Thank you, my brother!
TiG, I was replying to you earlier-got a telephone call-refreshed the reply before uploading it. Alas! I can not reconstitute it. It was 'sweet' too! Well, that is the way it goes.
I am not certain how much of the comments between Hal and me you reviewed before you hailed into this sidebar/discussion we are having, but the main point we were drilling down on was did Jesus, the man, actually live. Hal says Ehrman can think what he wishes about Jesus being a human being. That he is not beholden to agree with Ehrman on all of his expert opinions, or words to that effect. Then, Hal continuously appears to use ambiguous language about maybe Jesus was a man, but he can be positive Jesus was not a son of God, thereabouts.
Then, TiG you wrote something about "stuff."
TiG, what you seem to be missing in all these topics on faith is the part about believers' walking by faith. How such characteristic faith-walking makes us heroes in small part in a much larger developed frame of reference. The New Testament is adamant, each believer is justified by FAITH in God. TiG, the unbelievers in God, want clear and free evidence of God's presence. You want a God to oblige you fully in your natural man. Every believer who is spiritually awakened knows, actually can tell you that will not happen, generally-speaking, of course. God is Spirit. God will "call" according to God's manner of doing so, and God's appointed time
While I am on the subject. Let me add this. God's salvation plan for humanity is fully intended to point mankind to God. All done with the focus on God. God's salvation plan is not about making life easy for mankind, his/her career, goals, and happiness. All of the salvation plan is for man to seek in hopes he can find his Creator - who is not far from him should he simply care to ask, seek, and knock!
Spirituality is not something you allow yourself. Thus, you can not accept a Bible where men and women speak of spirituality, whether in genres, paragraphs, sentences, or words. It begs the question that you bother to attempt changing-correcting-ending something you barely understand in people of Faith. You appear to not be the slightest bit interested in spirituality for all the time you spend in the Religion and Ethics category.
In conclusion. as you wish for me to have one less God, I wish for you to have one more worldview. Peace.
That entire post reeks of the condescension about which you complain.
Your post can't be taken serious, and your assertions deserve: No further written comment.
and
Mocowgirl! What is this sense of "urgency" in your tone? There is a lot of earth digging left to be done! As these stories point out. Emphatically.
Actually I was continuing from the video you posted. My comments were related to the debate.
I am not missing it Calbab, I just do not hold it at the same level of value as you do. To me, faith (belief without evidence), is not something that has a lot of value in a debate or in formal analysis. The value of faith is outside of the realm of critical thinking. And I do see value in faith, but never as an alternative to facts and reason. That is our profound difference.
I think the problem here is that you are not thinking like a skeptic. Put yourself in the shoes of a skeptic and you would see that no skeptic is trying to get the most supreme entity on the planet to oblige us. Before that were to happen (and I doubt it would) the skeptic must first believe that the most supreme entity exists. Further, a skeptic might hold out a very strong possibility of a supreme entity while holding almost no possibility that the Bible or any of its God depictions are valid. I can explain this point quite thoroughly if you wish.
Bottom line, to a skeptic, asking for evidence of the biblical God is like asking for evidence of Zeus. You would not consider Zeus challenges to be asking Zeus to oblige us. Go to the next step now.
My motivation is not to reduce your personal faith. Rather it is to challenge beliefs when appropriate in a public forum for all to read and consider. In my opinion, the world would be much better if we relegated our holy books to quaint history. We can extract the human wisdom that we find good (and it certainly exists) while discarding the vast majority. Then, people are quite free to believe in a supreme entity. And as long as they do not try to adorn this entity with attributes, personality, stories, specific divine rules, etc. that nobody could possibly know, their faith is almost immune from challenge. All good.
1. Francis Collins, Director of the Human Genome Project and former skeptic, and a scientist believer and a Bible Christian.
2. Lee Strobel, Investigative Journalist and former skeptic, and Christian author and Bible Christian.
3. Calbab, former skeptic, and well you know my background sufficiently.
The point being, being a skeptic is nothing special. There are millions of doctors, scientists, and other professionals who are faithful believers in any number of world religions. In conclusion, your argument that the Bible can not change skeptics is invalid. Saul of Taurus was skeptic of the new sect called Christians, and he became a Christian with his letters remembered in the very book you rebuke!
And?
If artifacts are proof of a god, then Zeus is real.
I spent this evening watching "History of Life Series - Study in Evolution". Definitely refutes Genesis. Not to mention all of the mass extinctions that Yahweh was responsible for if it existed.
I also watched the first episode of "Secrets of the Stones" about the history of people in Ireland. The Irish people worshiped many gods throughout their history until sometime between 400-500AD which will be in episode two.
I enjoy watching contemporary documentaries of the history of our planet and the history of our species. To date, there has been no independent documentation of proof of the existence of any supernatural beings, but if there ever is I will watch it, also.
That is not what I wrote and certainly was not my meaning. I was explaining that skeptics do not think they are placing demands on God because (obviously) skeptics do not believe a god exists. If a skeptic believed in a supreme being that skeptic would very likely not presume to tell the supreme being anything or make demands.
I feel certain you intended to state that, skeptics are agnostic-atheist (does not know) in regard to God's existence. That does nothing to explain all the glaring insults, mockings, contemptuous comments throughout this thread coming from your fellow skeptics. You "heartily" vote 'em up I observe and add your voice to the clamorous "demagnifying" of that which you profess to not be certain of one way or the other. You have even sought (here) to eliminate faith in God, which would have the profound negative effect of "killing" God in the human heart. All the while you're writing such comments, you imply vividly the necessity of "letting God go" will be wondrous for mankind.
Spirituality is not something you allow yourself. Thus, you can not accept a Bible where men and women speak of spirituality, whether in genres, paragraphs, sentences, or words.
It is getting a little tiresome seeing you reference “spirituality” in every attempt to bolster Christianity. Spiritually is a concept shared by all religions throughout the world, as well as deism, pantheism and the Spinoza concept of god. What you’re doing is like glorifying the Dallas Cowboys on the basis that they are football players. You are undoubtedly an unwavering Christian, so why do you rely so heavily on generic arguments that are not specific to Christianity?
'Does not know' is too simplistic. As I have offered repeatedly for years, the agnostic atheist is not convinced there is a god but recognizes that s/he does not know there is no god. It is a rational position to hold given the lack of evidence for a god and the recognition that no human being is omniscient therefore no human being can know for certain.
When someone claims faith (belief without evidence) the more extraordinary (or unlikely) the belief the more it will be considered ridiculous. The biblical God is replete with attributes, personality, stories, etc. All of these details serve to discredit the Bible because they illustrate an impossible being or illustrate that the Bible is indeed NOT divine. Case in point: omniscience. An omniscient God is not, by definition (i.e. by the actual meaning of the word), surprised by the actions of the creations he (an omnipotent God) created.
Skeptics routinely offer logical challenges and are routinely met with responses that ultimately boil down to 'I just believe'. There is also a tremendous amount of evasion (and other less-than-stellar tactics) embedded in theist responses. In short, when a critical thinking individual poses a challenge and receives fluffy evasion in response, after a while patience wears thin.
While I am not in favor of derision I will vote up a comment whose content I agree with. If the derision overpowers the quality of the content then I will not vote it up. You would be well-advised to not try to read too much into votes - a vote is a binary super simple summary that reveals none of the considerations.
Not being certain is the epitome of personal honesty. It is not a weakness. One can be 99.9999999999% convinced that there is no god but removing the possibility that they are wrong is irrational. So strike out this notion that not declaring certainty is the same as being confused or holding ill-conceived notions (which is what you seem to be implying).
I have zero expectation that I can eliminate faith in God - not even in a single person - so strike that presumption from your list. And I agree that faith for some is a good thing. I have in the past mentioned my 90 year old father-in-law. He is a lifelong devout Catholic who has always lived his life honorably. A very good example of someone following the good NT teachings. I would never consider saying a single thing to my father-in-law that in any way compromises his faith.
However, on social forums, I will absolutely point out what I consider to be problems with accepting without question what religious organizations (and books) merely claim as truth.
Actually you are misreading this too. (Hold down on the presumption.) My position is that religion is net bad. I have suggested quite a few times that I see the value in people holding a belief that there is a supreme entity. And that belief does not conflict with what human beings know as of 2018 (including all of science). So my ideal is that we relegate the Bible and other religious books as quaint ancient works, pull out the parts that we think are good advice (from human beings) and conduct our lives. I would very much like to see all religious organizations fade away leaving people without their indoctrination and more likely to engage in critical thinking. That does not mean no God allowed Calbab. It means, among other things, that we will be far less likely to see people killing others because they truly believe they are doing the will of Allah or Yahweh or Jesus.
TiG, really? While I do not wish to bring your father-in-law into this (he is an innocent), when you "hack-up" the New Testament to your decided liking, there will not be any "good NT teachings" left! These humanists attacks on the Church are serious and deliberate, you are not in the religion and ethics category, void of faith in yourself, to promote religion. Your purpose is clear to all who care to understand it and acknowledge it. Going forward, I will try to remember to bring to your attention any writing or posting by you which hallenges the existence of Christianity and faith.
I (personally) am not prescribing a particular way to cherry-pick from the NT. (Don't be so angry all the time.) Pretty much everyone other than biblical literalists have already decided on their hacking of choice (hacking = cherry-picking / exotic interpretation). I know that the Catholics walk a very careful path through the Bible. What Catholics are taught is quite different in many ways from what is presented in the Bible as a whole. To test this, all you have to do is have a conversation with a Catholic and watch them be surprised by what is actually in the Bible.
LoL, well how could you possibly know this? Do you somehow know what I would extract from the NT? Good grief.
Not sure what the above is supposed to mean. But it is probably best that you not continue to try to make this personal.
Now who is being presumptuous? The New Testament is written to and for a 'peculiar' people, those willing to believe in God, Son, and Spirit. The focus in all of the writings being God as head. The New Testament is not an "advice" book; not a "motivational" book; not an "emotional" set of writings meant to thrill. Above all, it is not a book for skeptics and unbelievers to "retool," and repackage for humanists purposes.
Here again your "quaint ancient works," "fade away," "indoctrination," read as negative notations (that is, "get rid of"), and instead let critical thinking fill their place. Your meaning is clear through the word shading.
It means, among other things, that we will be far less likely to see people killing others because they truly believe they are doing the will of Allah or Yahweh or Jesus.
Really? How much less? I do not in any way support the ignorant and bizarre forms of killing of people that is in this world. Isn't it true that murderous ideologies come in all forms, shapes, and attitudes?
It means I will point out your own words to you for further elaboration as appropriate. I hope you won't find that awkward or disagreeable.
Murderous ideologies are rampant in the Bible.
If you quote me and then offer your interpretation of my words I will correct any misunderstandings (at least those that seem to be genuine). If you think this is going to work well for you in a debate sense I predict you will be disappointed.
Don't be presumptuous. I am not angry 99.99 percent of the time. Life is too short for anger, I'm sure you agree.
Where is the presumption on my part?
I would agree with that. The authors of the NT clearly are focused on those predisposed to believe their stories.
Skeptics pretty much let the Bible speak for itself. All one need do in most cases is quote scripture and watch defenders twist themselves into semantic knots trying to defend it. There is no 'retooling' and really nothing sinister going on. I suspect you think it is sinister because you believe this stuff and cannot imagine that someone else finds it to be nonsense. And this humanist angle, Calbab, is just silly. Most skeptics are not pushing some stupid formal agenda. In most cases we are simply challenging notions that appear to be ill-conceived. The agenda, if you will, is critical thinking.
I would certainly hope so. The Bible is an important piece of literature and should be treated as such. You think it should be considered divine and are offended that anyone would disagree with you. Well people do and will continue to disagree with that view and will continue to challenge it. And I realize that the challenges are sometimes frustrating to hear because, really, there is no good rebuttal. I certainly would not want to try to defend the Bible as divine. Seems like an impossible challenge.
Are you really asking for me to give you a number? Calbab, just consider what is taking place currently. Allah Akbar is shouted by terrorists to show that they are doing God's will. If that does not clarify my point, just consider history.
Yes. And I am against all of them.
Maybe you just have an angry writing style (at least with me).
What's your point? It doesn't refute anything I said. If anything, it only supports what I said.
OKAY. Well, I am good. How about you? See you at the next event, Gang.
I am not angry with you TiG. For the record, those individuals I am angry with I do not write back back at length. Do not presume anger, because I do not approve of what you want out of people of faith.
Gordy, as I 'fall away' from this specific article, note that you start out with a question above. The point is I gave you my answer to your question. Humanist do not acknowledge the Supernatural nature of the Bible and I am okay with that! The solution to that is simply close your books on world religions and stay off from religion like its the plague, in my opinion. It's raining out: maybe time for a nap!
But you don't seem to understand it, with respect to "experiences." Humanists logically analyze things. That's their "experience." It's more rational and objective.
Good then. I am ending my discussion on this thread, at this time. Navigation on it has become a minor distraction and I do not wish to hang around for it to get worse. I will end by stating, I accept your explanation. That said, I am aware humanists like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins are attempting to develop a type of spirituality for humanists as a means to avoid nihilism.
I know the feeling, LOL.
Well for my new year opening I have just added my voice to at least two groups on NewsTalkers: 1. Secular Nation. 2. Critical Thinking.
I expect to be treated well now, y'all. (Smile.) More believers should investigate what the humanists are saying among themselves, it may help us understand each other better. Or, we can simply do unto them as they do unto us.
That would be wonderful.
So long as some folks don't react to imaginary persecution.
My song for 2018: HAPPY NEW YEAR!
Beautiful. He lives!
Praise God, Magnoliaave! I am so glad you liked this song, singer, and arrangement. Happy New Year!
Well, this article has become too long to easily navigate. So, I expect I will move off and onward. . . . Thanks for letting me share, brother Hal!