What is Original Sin?

  

Category:  Religion & Ethics

By:  katrix  •  2 years ago  •  450 comments

What is Original Sin?

The bible makes it clear that the "original sin" is the quest for knowledge.  

Getting past the writings which claim that Eve was at fault for tempting Adam - when it was Adam, not Eve, who supposedly ate from the tree of knowledge, making it his fault if we accept the idea of personal responsibility - it's pretty clear that the quest for knowledge is what the bible describes as original sin.

The story claims that after Adam ate the apple, he and Eve recognized their nakedness, and were ashamed, and grabbed some fig leaves to cover themselves with. Therefore, many people think lust and sex are the original sins ( without which, the human race wouldn't exist - because if Adam and Eve hadn't realized their sexuality, they'd never had had children, so we'd have two people wandering around some garden for eternity, and no other humans would have existed).   

The idea that Adam and Eve were innocent as animals is rather amusing, since all animals procreate.  Even amoebas procreate - they are the closest to God, because they can reproduce without all that nasty genitalia stuff going on, and therefore they can remain virgins for  life.  Sex is not a sin.  But for the men who put the bible together, knowledge was  heresy, because the more illiterate the populace was, the more sheeplike they were.  

The quest for knowledge is original sin.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Bob Nelson
1  Bob Nelson    2 years ago

Interesting thesis.

We all know another "origin of knowledge" story: Prometheus, the bringer of fire (symbol of knowledge and progress). It's interesting to compare the two stories; to compare their authors' methods.

Fire, it seems to me, is a much better stand-in for "knowledge". As you say, having sex doesn't require knowledge, but using fire certainly does.

So why did the Eden author write about sex? Wouldn't it be simpler, for us the readers, to assume that the author meant exactly what he said: that becoming aware of sex was the problem? As long as sex is just a physical act, with no social baggage, there's no problem. It is the social baggage that causes problems.

If we enlarge that idea, then it isn't "knowledge" that is sinful. It is loading that knowledge with extraneous baggage that is wrong.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
1.1  Greg Jones  replied to  Bob Nelson @1    2 years ago

Why would a perfect higher power create an imperfect object. Knowing humans would fall short and "miss the mark" makes the whole "creation" of them pointless and sending a "flood" to destroy them ridiculous.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.1.1  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    2 years ago
Why would a perfect higher power create an imperfect object. Knowing humans would fall short and "miss the mark" makes the whole "creation" of them pointless and sending a "flood" to destroy them ridiculous.

For the answer to this statement you would have to ask the Mesopotamians since they are the ones who originated the flood story.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    2 years ago
Why would a perfect higher power create an imperfect object. Knowing humans would fall short and "miss the mark" makes the whole "creation" of them pointless and sending a "flood" to destroy them ridiculous.

I'm reminded of something the late, great, Gene Roddenberry once said: "We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty Humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes.” 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Greg Jones @1.1    2 years ago
Why would a perfect higher power create an imperfect object.

I have no idea.

(And I don't know why you're addressing this question to me... I'll tell you my ruminations, but I do not pretend to know God very well. It has been a long time since She spoke to me...  winking )

I think this notion of "perfect" is... imperfect. An all-powerful god could perhaps create beings who never do anything wrong... but would they be "perfect"? Is "doing good" an accomplishment if it is impossible to do evil? Can a being without free will be considered "perfect"?

And of course... if there is free will, then there will be evil. Sometimes people choose to do stuff they know is wrong.

In what context are we operating? Are we eternal? Or is there nothing after this life? Why would a "perfect god" create such ephemeral creatures as we? And... if we are eternal, then it probably is impossible for us to evaluate our behavior over our three-score-and-ten as compared with eternity.

I don't think there are any one-line answers, here...

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.4  cjcold  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.1.3    2 years ago

After my two days of vacation I'm thinking that original sin is whatever PH decides it is.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2  Buzz of the Orient    2 years ago

IMO "original sin" is a sin that nobody's thought of before.

 
 
 
katrix
2.1  author  katrix  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    2 years ago

Heh.  Good one!  Are there any left?

 
 
 
Skrekk
2.2  Skrekk  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    2 years ago

Catholics say that you get extra points if your sin is original.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.2.1  Gordy327  replied to  Skrekk @2.2    2 years ago
Catholics say that you get extra points if your sin is original.

How many points do you get for "mortal sins?"

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.2.2  Split Personality  replied to  Gordy327 @2.2.1    2 years ago

I remember 2 things from grade school..........

Milk bottles of sin.jpg

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.2.3  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.2    2 years ago

and...

Nun with Ruler dreamstime_12895823.jpg

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.2.4  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.3    2 years ago

Well, maybe a few more, but the milk bottles and nuns were the scariest !

/s

 
 
 
cjcold
2.2.5  cjcold  replied to  Split Personality @2.2.4    2 years ago

Even worse than the flying monkeys in The Wizard of OZZ!!!!

 
 
 
cjcold
2.2.6  cjcold  replied to  Skrekk @2.2    2 years ago

And indulgence makes it a moot point.

 
 
 
epistte
2.3  epistte  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2    2 years ago
IMO "original sin" is a sin that nobody's thought of before.

Original sin is a guilt trip that most conservatives Christians readily accept because they would rather suffer than to think rationally.

Conservatives are outraged when the idea of black people are owed reparations because of the past actions of slave owners and those who oppose equal rights for blacks, but these same conservatives have no problem accepting original sin that we cannot prove ever happened and it is almost certainly a myth. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.3.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  epistte @2.3    2 years ago

I would appreciate if you did not use a reply to my comment that did not disparage anyone in order to launch a dirty smear against a group of people. 

 
 
 
epistte
2.3.2  epistte  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @2.3.1    2 years ago
I would appreciate if you did not use a reply to my comment that did not disparage anyone in order to launch a dirty smear against a group of people.

I was not aware that there are groups of people whose opinions or beliefs cannot be criticized. 

If you post a list I will do my best to not mention them in a disparaging light.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.3    2 years ago

Are there liberal Christians who believe so differently from conservative Christians?

 
 
 
epistte
2.3.4  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.3    2 years ago
Are there liberal Christians who believe so differently from conservative Christians?

Obviously, there are liberal Christians who believe differently than conservative Christians. If that wasn't true then we wouldn't have conservative and liberal Christians. They would all be the same. Conservatives seem to be more focused on sin, punishment, and judging while the liberal strain seems to be more focused on helping people and teaching tolerance and forgiveness. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.5  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.3.4    2 years ago

What are liberal Christians' views on original sin, and how do they differ from conservative Christians' views on it?

What denominations are considered conservative and liberal?

 
 
 
epistte
2.3.6  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.5    2 years ago
What are liberal Christians' views on original sin, and how do they differ from conservative Christians' views on it?

You should ask them. I thought that the idea of original sin was silly, but I felt that most of the Bible were myth and parable instead of being fact.  You can take that however you want because I'm just a wacky Humanist. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
2.3.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.3    2 years ago
Are there liberal Christians who believe so differently from conservative Christians?

"Progressive Christianity is a "post-liberal movement" within Christianity "that seeks to reform the faith via the insights of post-modernism and a reclaiming of the truth beyond the verifiable historicity and factuality of the passages in the Bible by affirming the truths within the stories that may not have actually happened. Progressive Christianity represents a post-modern theological approach, and is not necessarily synonymous with progressive politics. It developed out of the Liberal Christianity of the modern-era, which was rooted in enlightenment thinking.

Progressive Christianity is characterized by a willingness to question tradition, acceptance of human diversity, a strong emphasis on social justice and care for the poor and the oppressed, and environmental stewardship of the earth. Progressive Christians have a deep belief in the centrality of the instruction to "love one another" (John 15:17) within the teachings of Jesus Christ. This leads to a focus on promoting values such as compassion, justice, mercy, and tolerance, often through political activism."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Christianity

 
 
 
Skrekk
2.3.8  Skrekk  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @2.3.7    2 years ago
Progressive Christians have a deep belief in the centrality of the instruction to "love one another" (John 15:17) within the teachings of Jesus Christ. This leads to a focus on promoting values such as compassion, justice, mercy, and tolerance, often through political activism.

I was raised in the ELCA and that's pretty much what they teach.   I don't recall anyone fretting about idiotic notions like "original sin."

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
2.3.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  epistte @2.3.2    2 years ago

Your comment was not at all relevant to mine.  You never had any trouble before making disparaging remarks about groups without attaching them to others' decent comments - when you attach your filthy comment to a comment where I made no criticism of anyone it makes me want to take a shower.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.10  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @2.3.6    2 years ago

I figured you had insight since you cited what you thought were conservative Christians' views.

My mistake. Sorry.

 
 
 
katrix
2.3.11  author  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @2.3.10    2 years ago

The Southern Baptists I've met are what I would consider to be Conservative Christians - whereas Episcopalians are liberal Christians.   But there are so many sects within each, so that's probably an over-generalization.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.3.12  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @2.3.11    2 years ago

Yes, churches vary, even within one denomination.

it isn't very surprising.

 
 
 
epistte
2.3.13  epistte  replied to  katrix @2.3.11    2 years ago
The Southern Baptists I've met are what I would consider to be Conservative Christians - whereas Episcopalians are liberal Christians.

I know of an LGBT friendly sect of the Catholic church, even if they are not officially recognized by Rome.

https://www.dignityusa.org/
 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  JohnRussell    2 years ago

I think the story of the forbidden apple is allegorical for man's ascent in evolution to a state of self-consciousness.

Without self-consciousness there is no concept of hate, jealousy, intent to deceive,  intentional cruelty, or vanity.  Animals appear cruel or deceptive at times, but only to the human eye.  Of course self-consciousness has it's benefits too, but I think 'the fall' represents self-regard.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 years ago
I think the story of the forbidden apple is allegorical for ...

... and many other things.   One could (and people do) read all sorts of divine lessons from biblical allegories.   That really is the problem.   The Bible (and other holy books) can and does mean so many (and contradictory) things to so many people.   Sans a consistent interpretation, none of the interpretations can logically be seen as truth.    Yet, a human mind is capable of ignoring this obvious fact and holding that its personal interpretation is THE true one.   

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
3.1.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    2 years ago
Sans a consistent interpretation, none of the interpretations can logically be seen as truth.

Or... there may be many truths.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @3.1.1    2 years ago

Many contradictory truths?   How does that logically work?

 
 
 
luther28
3.1.3  luther28  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.2    2 years ago

It would seem that of late, truth is in the eye of the beholder.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  luther28 @3.1.3    2 years ago

But is that valid reasoning?   Truth is whatever an individual deems as such?

 
 
 
luther28
3.1.5  luther28  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.4    2 years ago

In fact, no. The truth is the truth, there is nothing else.

But having said that the fly in the ointment is how one chooses to interpret the truth. 

 
 
 
katrix
3.1.6  author  katrix  replied to  TᵢG @3.1    2 years ago

Good point - I should have added "IMO" at the end of the article!

 
 
 
Skrekk
3.1.7  Skrekk  replied to  katrix @3.1.6    2 years ago

I'm just glad that we can blame women for the fall of man.    Of course that also means that women are smarter than men.

 
 
 
cjcold
3.2  cjcold  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 years ago

Do you think that might be happening anytime soon?

 
 
 
cjcold
3.2.1  cjcold  replied to  cjcold @3.2    2 years ago

According to Heinlein we are all god...Grok?

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
3.3  Release The Kraken  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 years ago
animals appear cruel or deceptive at times, but only to the human eye.

Actually no one thinks that, that's just bizarre.....

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.4  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  JohnRussell @3    2 years ago
I think the story of the forbidden apple is allegorical for man's ascent in evolution to a state of self-consciousness.

It would certainly make more sense that the "apple" was really some psilocybin mushrooms that awakened man from his animal mentality and allowed some early primates ancestors to evolve self-awareness. Without being self-aware you really can't know good and bad, just fear and safety, fight or flight, as most animals function on. 

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
4  Galen Marvin Ross    2 years ago

I think that "Original Sin" is making the assumption that you are the same as a god or, in the case of Christians, the same as Yahweh, you are the creation of the gods, not the god. It is like a car assuming that it is the same as the man who created it.

 
 
 
katrix
4.1  author  katrix  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @4    2 years ago

I read an interesting short story recently in Asimov's Robot Dreams about a robot who dreamed it was a man - and was terminated because of that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6  Gordy327    2 years ago
Lucifer thinking he could be equal to God and for this he and his cronies were cast out of heaven.

God couldn't stand a little competition eh? Satan tries a hostile takeover and god loses his $#!t. Seems like god is the one with the pride problem.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6    2 years ago

Do you believe that there is a God?

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1    2 years ago
Do you believe that there is a God?

I "believe" you have asked me that question before and I have answered. So why ask it again? And what difference does it make?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.1    2 years ago

It is either a yes or no answer--not what you typed.

Why is that question hard to answer for you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.1    2 years ago

If you don't believe, why do you spend so much time trying to convince others that what they believe is so wrong?

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.2    2 years ago
It is either a yes or no answer--not what you typed.

And I have answered before in other discussions.

Why is that question hard to answer for you?

What is the point to your question? Especially as it pertains to my original comment?

If you don't believe, why do you spend so much time trying to convince others that what they believe is so wrong?

When have I tried to do that? That is not my intent. Nor do I care what others believe. People can believe whatever they want.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.5  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.4    2 years ago

When have you tried to do that?

Have you READ your comments regarding religion and the people who have one?

i don't remember every person who posts here positions on everything--which is why I asked politely.

Sue me.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.5    2 years ago
Have you READ your comments regarding religion and the people who have one?

Yes, and I have not tried to convince others their beliefs are wrong or that they should abandon their beliefs. I simply challenge said beliefs or the claims based on them from a logical standpoint.

i don't remember every person who posts here positions on everything--which is why I asked politely.

And yet you seem to remember my comments to others regarding religion or people who have religion? Interesting. And I politely asked what difference does my "belief" (or lack thereof) has, especially with regards to my original post.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.6    2 years ago

There is absolutely no point in challenging what one believes or doesn't believe about God unless you are trying to change someone's mind or belittling them for what they believe.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.8  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.7    2 years ago
There is absolutely no point in challenging what one believes or doesn't believe about God unless you are trying to change someone's mind or belittling them for what they believe.

Maybe you don't think there is. But then, where in this discussion have I challenged anyone's belief about god or belittled them?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.8    2 years ago

Your rather snarky comments have been duly noted.

Carry on.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.10  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.9    2 years ago
Your rather snarky comments have been duly noted.

Snarky, how? You implied there was no point. I simply pointed out that was your perspective. You have also not addressed any of my questions. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.10    2 years ago

Post #6 and post # 1.1.2 on this thread.

On another thread ("The more we evolve...."), posts # 4.1.17, 4.1.18, 9.1.36, 9.1.43, 10.3, 15.2.25, 15.2.27

What is your point in challenging anyone's beliefs about religion or God?

I believe in God, but don't care if you do or not. I am not trying to change your mind, convert you, or telling you that you are wrong.

Can you not show folks the same courtesy?

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.12  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.11    2 years ago
Post #6 and post # 1.1.2 on this thread.

How is that a challenge to anyone's beliefs? It's a different perspective and a logical analysis. Or do you simply view any question, view or perspective about god, religion, beliefs, ect. as a challenge or attempt to change someone's beliefs?

What is your point in challenging anyone's beliefs about religion or God?

What is your point in asking if I believe in god or not?

but don't care if you do or not. I am not trying to change your mind, convert you, or telling you that you are wrong.

Right back at you.

Can you not show folks the same courtesy?

you seem rather defensive. Where have I been discourteous? See my first statement.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.12    2 years ago

I am deeply sorry you don't ( Deleted ) recognize your own snarky comments.

Carry on.

Skirting {SP}

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.14  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.13    2 years ago
I am deeply sorry you don't (deleted ) recognize your own snarky comments

Now who's being snarky? Carry on!

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.14    2 years ago

I suppose the difference is that I recognize my snarky comments (and yes, it was MEANT to be a little snarky), and you don't recognize your own comments .

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.15    2 years ago
I suppose the difference is that I recognize my snarky comments (and yes, it was MEANT to be a little snarky), and you don't recognize your own comments .

I see you have no real interest in a discussion then. I don't really care how you (erroneously) recognize my comments. It makes no difference.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.17  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.16    2 years ago

They are what they are.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.17    2 years ago
They are what they are.

Again, I don't care how you see it.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
6.1.19  Phoenyx13  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.7    2 years ago
There is absolutely no point in challenging what one believes or doesn't believe about God unless you are trying to change someone's mind or belittling them for what they believe.

i honestly disagree - i don't challenge anyone's beliefs to change them, i try to understand how/when/where they acquired those beliefs. I want to understand the mindset, how someone arrived at their conclusion that a particular thing (in this case God and/or religion) is something worthy of their belief. there has to be a thought process (we are all humans after all) behind it - so i am curious to know what it is.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.20  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.18    2 years ago

Good!

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.19    2 years ago

There are thousands of books to explain the thought processes.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
6.1.22  Phoenyx13  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.21    2 years ago
There are thousands of books to explain the thought processes.

books are subject to interpretation, correct ? so why couldn't i just get the information "straight from the horse's mouth" ? Why is it wrong to ask someone how they arrived at their conclusion and get the information straight from them ?

it seems that a lot of people hold these beliefs but don't want to explain how they arrived at those beliefs - as if it's a big "secret" that nobody can know. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.23  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.21    2 years ago
There are thousands of books to explain the thought processes.

Nothing like hearing it straight from the source.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.24  Texan1211  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.22    2 years ago

People are entitled to believe as they wish. You aren't owed any explanations.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.23    2 years ago

Well, gee, wouldn't a book be straight from the source?

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.26  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.25    2 years ago

Books do not answer questions.   Books do not engage in discussion.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.27  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.25    2 years ago
Well, gee, wouldn't a book be straight from the source?

Is Harry Potter a good book source to learn about magic? Otherwise, what TiG said.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.28  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.24    2 years ago
Well, gee, wouldn't a book be straight from the source?
People are entitled to believe as they wish. You aren't owed any explanations.

And you accuse me of being snarky? How hilarious. And hypocritical.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.27    2 years ago

Harry Potter is fiction, so no, a credible, sane individual wouldn't consider that as a source on magic.

Don't you already know that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.28    2 years ago

I really don't care what your opinion is.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.31  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.29    2 years ago
Harry Potter is fiction

So is the bible.

I really don't care what your opinion is.

Likewise. But I've stated fact, not opinion. 

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
6.1.32  Phoenyx13  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.24    2 years ago
People are entitled to believe as they wish. You aren't owed any explanations.

i didn't state that i was owed any explanations. (i'm not sure where you got that from or why you are being so defensive) are you saying i don't have any right to ask anyone about their beliefs ?

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.33  Gordy327  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.32    2 years ago
i didn't state that i was owed any explanations. (i'm not sure where you got that from or why you are being so defensive) are you saying i don't have any right to ask anyone about their beliefs ?

I see you noticed his defensive posture too, especially when beliefs are questioned and/or challenged, or when he otherwise thinks they are.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
6.1.34  Phoenyx13  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.33    2 years ago
I see you noticed his defensive posture too, especially when beliefs are questioned and/or challenged, or when he otherwise thinks they are.

it doesn't make sense. I have the right to ask questions and question people about their beliefs - just as they have the right to not answer if they choose or to answer them if they want to. It also seems as if, when it comes to religion, there's no free speech allowed if it in any way/shape/form casts anything possibly negative on the religion.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.35  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.18    2 years ago
Again, I don't care how you see it.

You seem to say that a lot.

The fact that you feel the need to tell so many people you don't care what they think, only proves that you do. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.36  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.35    2 years ago
You seem to say that a lot.

not really.

The fact that you feel the need to tell so many people you don't care what they think, only proves that you do.

How many people have I said that to? List them! 

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.37  Gordy327  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.34    2 years ago
It also seems as if, when it comes to religion, there's no free speech allowed if it in any way/shape/form casts anything possibly negative on the religion.

Many people are so emotionally tied to their religion that any hint of a negative connotation, including challenges, sets them off.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.38  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.37    2 years ago

No one has stopped you from posting what you wish.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
6.1.39  magnoliaave  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.38    2 years ago

Anything to do with religion sets him off.  There are five, to be sure, who love to contradict anything and everything to do with Christianity. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.40  Texan1211  replied to  magnoliaave @6.1.39    2 years ago

yes, there are.

Anytime religion or God is mentioned, you can expect the usual suspects to show up.

What kills me is that they attempt to couch their arguments as strictly logical and they want to "know" how other came to the conclusion that there is a God.

I believe in God. I don't care if they do or not. I am never going to be trying to change their minds as it would be a total waste of time. But the childish names--"bible babblers" and "Flying spaghetti monster", etc. should stop.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.41  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.38    2 years ago
No one has stopped you from posting what you wish.

I never said anyone did.

Anytime religion or God is mentioned, you can expect the usual suspects to show up.

I guess it sets off our BS meters.

What kills me is that they attempt to couch their arguments as strictly logical and they want to "know" how other came to the conclusion that there is a God.

Meanwhile, the "other" has no logical argument to give, much less a logical conclusion.

 
 
 
katrix
6.1.42  author  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.40    2 years ago

This article isn't the place to start a petty fight.  Let's drop it, please.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.43  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @6.1.42    2 years ago

Not a problem for me. it is your seed, and I will respect your wishes.

Does that mean everyone else is supposed to drop it, too?

 
 
 
katrix
6.1.44  author  katrix  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.43    2 years ago

Yep - I'm assuming that if you drop it, it will end.  If not, I'll ask others to stop as well.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
6.1.45  magnoliaave  replied to  katrix @6.1.44    2 years ago

I don't get it.  Why are we the petty ones when the usual crowd march in giving opinions?

I believe in God!

 
 
 
katrix
6.1.46  author  katrix  replied to  magnoliaave @6.1.45    2 years ago

The whole purpose of this place is for people to give their opinions and discuss things - I know the "usual crowd" (which probably includes me) upsets those who don't want their views challenged, but that's what discussions are for.  Nobody's forced to read articles or comments that they don't like.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.47  Gordy327  replied to  magnoliaave @6.1.45    2 years ago
Why are we the petty ones when the usual crowd march in giving opinions?

You're the ones who seem to take offense or get defensive whenever religious views or beliefs are challenged.

I believe in God!

Good for you. And?

 
 
 
magnoliaave
6.1.48  magnoliaave  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.47    2 years ago

In case you forgot!

I happen not to know what the original sin was nor is it important to me. With all that is going on today it would take a backseat. 

I have had my say!

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.49  Gordy327  replied to  magnoliaave @6.1.48    2 years ago
I happen not to know what the original sin was nor is it important to me.

I did not mention anything about original sin. I merely commented on a claim regarding original sin.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.50  Texan1211  replied to  magnoliaave @6.1.45    2 years ago

There is no point to all of this.

Let them have their fun amongst themselves.

As you can tell from some of the posts, some people have no respect for those who believe in God.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.1.51  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.50    2 years ago
As you can tell from some of the posts, some people have no respect for those who believe in God.

Would you feel the same if we were all pointing out flaws in the Koran?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.52  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.51    2 years ago

Yes, I would. 

But then again, you aren't doing that, are you?

 
 
 
lennylynx
6.1.53  lennylynx  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.50    2 years ago

I believe there are miniature hippos with wings flying around, but we can't see them because they are invisible.  Do you respect this belief of mine?  Do you respect belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.54  Texan1211  replied to  lennylynx @6.1.53    2 years ago

believe whatever you want. I don't care what anyone believes. 

I am not here to convert anyone, nor have I ever tried to convert anyone regarding God or religion.

Nor have I made fun of anyone's beliefs.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
6.1.55  Phoenyx13  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.40    2 years ago
What kills me is that they attempt to couch their arguments as strictly logical and they want to "know" how other came to the conclusion that there is a God.

i don't know if i'm "logical" but i am asking to "know" how others came to their conclusions, in fact i've had a nice discussion with a few people on that topic already and they answered my questions - for them it was a personal experience and that's a perfectly great answer. Plus, i didn't tell them to change their beliefs or that their beliefs were "stupid" or anything of that nature, go figure huh ?

thankfully some people aren't so sensitive and are kind enough to answer questions :)

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.56  Texan1211  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.55    2 years ago

Good for you!

 
 
 
lennylynx
6.1.57  lennylynx  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.54    2 years ago

I didn't ask if you cared, I asked if you respected these beliefs.  I was responding to your complaint about god belief not being respected.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.58  Texan1211  replied to  lennylynx @6.1.57    2 years ago

I respect your right to believe whatever you want. While I may not agree with you, I won't disparage your personal beliefs regarding God.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.59  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.58    2 years ago

If you do not agree you can always engage in discussion or debate on the differences.   Learning often comes from engaging in differences.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.60  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.59    2 years ago

Sorry, but others' opinions of my opinions doesn't interest me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.61  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.60    2 years ago

How about other's opinions on existential questions?   That is what I was referencing.

 
 
 
cjcold
6.1.62  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.3    2 years ago

So as a believer which do you fear worse, god or the devil?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.63  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.61    2 years ago

Look at the posts. Most people posting who don't believe in God aren't asking existential questions-they are far more likely to be demeaning God and/or religion. I don't have the patience for that, and don't care what their beliefs are. I have no need to explain myself or my beliefs, and have never tried to convince someone that what I believe is right.

When people can speak like decent human beings, I might feel like engaging them. Until then, no.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.64  Texan1211  replied to  cjcold @6.1.62    2 years ago

I fear neither. Why would I fear a loving God? And why would I fear the devil when I have God?

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.65  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.63    2 years ago
Look at the posts.

You should also look at your posts.   You picked a fight and got it.    I can pretty much guarantee no good discussion will come from complaining that people are opining on a particular topic.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.66  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.65    2 years ago

I didn't pick a fight. That isn't remotely true.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.67  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.36    2 years ago

not really.

Yes really.

How many people have I said that to?

More than one in the last day or so that i read.    Who knows how many more that i didn't read   

You know who they are.   You did it.

 

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.68  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.65    2 years ago
'You picked a fight and got it.'

That's all he does.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.69  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.65    2 years ago

My complaint wasn't that people have different opinions. It is the demeaning and degrading of those that do believe in God. it is the silly name-calling like "Flying Spaghetti Monster" etc. that I take offense with.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.70  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.68    2 years ago

Not to worry--I will pray for all of you!

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.71  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.24    2 years ago
'People are entitled to believe as they wish. You aren't owed any explanations.'

Neither are you.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.72  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.70    2 years ago

Pray for yourself.  I'm good.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.73  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.64    2 years ago
Why would I fear a loving God?

So let's try this.   I have a hard time recognizing the Abrahamic God as loving.   The Jesus hypostasis clearly fits the bill, but Yahweh is profoundly different.   Christianity fuses the two with the Holy Spirit into the monotheistic trinity construct.   So to hold that the God of the Bible is a loving God one would have to ignore the Old Testament.

And I am not speaking of old and new covenant.   That is not the point.  I am speaking about the rules and the actions of the God of the OT (who by Christian definition is also the God of the NT).   

To be very specific, here is one of many examples:

Vengeance on the Midianites

31  The  Lord  said to Moses, “Take vengeance on the Midianites for the Israelites. After that, you will be gathered to your people.”

So Moses said to the people, “Arm some of your men to go to war against the Midianites so that they may carry out the  Lord ’s vengeance on them. Send into battle a thousand men from each of the tribes of Israel.” So twelve thousand men armed for battle,a thousand from each tribe, were supplied from the clans of Israel. Moses sent them into battle,a thousand from each tribe, along with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the priest, who took with him articles from the sanctuary and the trumpets for signaling.

They fought against Midian, as the  Lord  commanded Moses, and killed every man . Among their victims were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur and Reba—the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. 10  They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. 11  They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, 12  and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the Israelite assembly at their camp on the plains of Moab, by the Jordan across from Jericho.

13  Moses, Eleazar the priest and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14  Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.

15  “Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. 16  “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s adviceand enticed the Israelites to be unfaithful to the Lord in the Peor incident,so that a plaguestruck the Lord ’s people. 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18  but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

19  “Anyone who has killed someone or touched someone who was killed must stay outside the camp seven days.On the third and seventh days you must purify yourselvesand your captives. 20  Purify every garmentas well as everything made of leather, goat hair or wood.”

21  Then Eleazar the priest said to the soldiers who had gone into battle,“This is what is required by the law that the  Lord  gave Moses: 22  Gold, silver, bronze, iron,tin, lead 23  and anything else that can withstand fire must be put through the fire, and then it will be clean. But it must also be purified with the water of cleansing. And whatever cannot withstand fire must be put through that water. 24  On the seventh day wash your clothes and you will be clean.Then you may come into the camp.”

Note that I do not include this to discuss its particulars but only to show an example of acts sanctioned by a God of Love stated in His divine word.    The Bible is replete with contradictions and factual / logical flaws so it is not unusual that skeptics would question why anyone would hold this to be the divine word of a loving, perfect, omniscient, omnipotent creator.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.74  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.63    2 years ago
'When people can speak like decent human beings, I might feel like engaging them. Until then, no.'

You first.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.75  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.71    2 years ago

I haven't asked a single person on here why they believe as they do--because, yet ONCE AGAIN--I don't CARE what others believe, it isn't any of my business. 

Now, what part of this aren't you getting? I can't make it any plainer.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.76  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.72    2 years ago

I will pray for whomever I wish.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.77  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.74    2 years ago

Please list ONE single post of mine where I have questioned someone's belief.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.78  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.73    2 years ago

You seem well-versed on the Bible. Figure it out on your own. I can not explain what others believe, and don't care to attempt it.

Personally, it makes no difference to me what you believe as far as God goes--whether you believe in Him or not, or whether He is a loving God or not.

I am not converting anyone. I have never said once that what I believe is right. What I claim is that what I believe works for ME. Period.

Take it or leave it.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.79  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.78    2 years ago
Figure it out on your own.   ...    Take it or leave it.

As noted, I offered an example from the Bible as evidence that the biblical God as described contradicts 'God of Love'.   This is a prelude to a thoughtful discussion.

I suspect you would not (honestly) consider your response to be one that would encourage anyone to have a thoughtful discussion with you on this topic.   

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.80  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.79    2 years ago

I simply do not wish to change your mind. It doesn't matter to me what you think.

I will not attempt to change your mind, and you can not change my mind regarding God.

No discussion as to what MY personal views are is necessary.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
6.1.81  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.63    2 years ago
Most people posting who don't believe in God

Statement needs qualified - Most people posting (and in the world) do not believe in your gods - Yahweh and its mortal/immortal son, Yeshua. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.82  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.81    2 years ago

My statement stands. That some don't believe in God wasn't really the point. The point is that many who don't believe are incredibly rude.

Not a thing to do with how many people believe or don't believe in God.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.83  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.80    2 years ago

Not the point I made.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.84  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.83    2 years ago

Oh well.

Sue me.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
6.1.85  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.82    2 years ago
The point is that many who don't believe are incredibly rude.

Rude is certainly better than dealing with the Christian zealots who have tortured, roasted, beheaded and went to war with fellow Christians over which sect was the one true representative of Yahweh/Yeshua on Earth.

Rude is certainly better than dealing with the Christian zealots who seek to force their sect's beliefs on others via government law.

Rude is certainly better than dealing with the Christian zealots who seek to indoctrinate children into their religious sect via public school systems.

In fact, rude is only possible because we live in a nation governed by secular law instead of religious law like countries like Saudi Arabia where a person can be beheaded for blaspheming religious belief.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
6.1.86  Phoenyx13  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.83    2 years ago
Not the point I made.

it seems as if some people want to limit "Free Speech" when it comes to religion unless that speech is in support of the religion and not questioning anything or possibly casting doubts upon it. These discussions (some) are not an effort to get anyone to change their mind or criticize - they are an effort to understand viewpoints better, how people can reconcile things that don't seem to make logical sense, find out their thought processes - but i suppose that's just a "big secret" that non-believers aren't supposed to know and not ever try to find out ?

 
 
 
charger 383
6.1.87  charger 383  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.82    2 years ago
The point is that many who don't believe are incredibly rude
.

I have always tried to be polite but there is rudeness both ways

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.88  Trout Giggles  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.86    2 years ago

I think that maybe some don't want to admit that there is no logic in their faith. What they don't understand is that faith doesn't require logic, in fact, it pretty much discourages logic. They can't explain why they believe the way they do and don't understand that faith is logic-free.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.89  It Is ME  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.88    2 years ago
I think that maybe some don't want to admit that there is no logic in their faith.

"Logic" is in the eye of the beholder.

Drama starts where one wants it to.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
6.1.90  Phoenyx13  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.88    2 years ago
I think that maybe some don't want to admit that there is no logic in their faith. What they don't understand is that faith doesn't require logic, in fact, it pretty much discourages logic. They can't explain why they believe the way they do and don't understand that faith is logic-free.

i can understand that. I've already asked a couple on here a few questions, they were nice enough to answer and for them - their faith and how they got to it are solely personal experiences that happened in their life, which is a perfectly great answer. I'm just curious, that's all, but it seems that this "curiosity" is considered by some to be a "personal attack" or "persecution" or "denigrating" and they refuse to entertain any kind of discussion unless it is "pro-religion".

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.91  Trout Giggles  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.90    2 years ago

Then why are they posting on this article if they feel they are under attack?

That's a rhetorical question, btw.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.92  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.89    2 years ago

Deleted skirting the CoC {SP}

1. No direct or indirect derogatory references to other members

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.93  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.89    2 years ago
"Logic" is in the eye of the beholder.

Not the case with formal logic:

Formal Logic :  Logic based on argument involving deductively necessary relationships and including the use of syllogisms and mathematical symbols.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.94  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.85    2 years ago

Well, personally, I have never done anything like what you have described, and in no way am I responsible for any of that.

It is rather silly to try and equate what I have posted with any of that.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.95  Texan1211  replied to  charger 383 @6.1.87    2 years ago

yes, there is. And if you believe I have personally been rude to you, I humbly apologize. Please let me know what I posted offended you so that I may take care to not do so again.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.96  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.93    2 years ago

C-3PO (See-Threepio) isn't the norm.. Human thought processes ARE !

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.97  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.81    2 years ago

Please tell me more of what I believe and what God I worship.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.98  Sparty On  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.85    2 years ago
Rude is certainly better than dealing with the Christian zealots who have tortured, roasted, beheaded and went to war with fellow Christians over which sect was the one true representative of Yahweh/Yeshua on Earth.

There is no excuse for rude.  No good ones anyway.   In that regard i've known few "nice" Atheists.   Most are sanctimonious, condescending pricks.   Look no further than NT for proof of that.

That said it's disingenuous as hell to intimate that Christians in general today are as you describe above.   Yeah it's a good sound-bite for your basic hater of Christians but thats about it.   Most Christians are peace loving, live and let live people.   Same as the majority of religious folks   But if you are really looking for religious zealots to worry about, the ones chopping heads off and such today, it's not Christians you should be worried about.

But i get it,  Christians are the big kid on the block, so they're usually the one the little kid on the block with an inferiority complex goes after.   So ..... carry on!

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.99  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.92    2 years ago

Removed for context {SP}

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.100  Sparty On  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.99    2 years ago

Because he has the temerity to disagree with the real drama queens.

Major case of projection going on by his accuser, MAJOR case  ...... SOSDD

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.101  Texan1211  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.100    2 years ago

Thank you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.102  Tessylo  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.100    2 years ago
'Major case of projection going on in his accuser, MAJOR case  ...... SOSDD'

Nope, not me.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.103  Texan1211  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.99    2 years ago

Thank you.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.104  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.101    2 years ago

Deleted Skirting {SP}

2. No taunting or bullying

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.105  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.89    2 years ago
"Logic" is in the eye of the beholder.

No, it's not. That would make it illogical.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.106  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.92    2 years ago

And I will continue to pray for you.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.107  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.67    2 years ago
Yes really.

Still no.

More than one in the last day or so that i read. Who knows how many more that i didn't read You know who they are. You did it.

I asked for a list. Even a number would help. Since you are unable to provide either, then your statement is just BS!

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.108  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.66    2 years ago
I didn't pick a fight. That isn't remotely true.

Wrong! That's all you've been doing with each post. otherwise, you would actually answer questions or challenges posed and not get so defensive.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.109  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.96    2 years ago
C-3PO (See-Threepio) isn't the norm.. Human thought processes ARE !

Clearly you don't understand what logical thought is.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.110  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.105    2 years ago
No, it's not. That would make it illogical.

In "Whose" mind ?

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.111  Gordy327  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.68    2 years ago
That's all he does.

Indeed. It's quite evident too. And we're not the only ones who see it too.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.112  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.109    2 years ago
Clearly you don't understand what logical thought is.

I've watched "Star Trek" enough to know...."Logic" isn't what it's all cracked up to be. thumbs down  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.113  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.108    2 years ago

You have every right to feel any way you personally choose.

Carry on.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.114  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.104    2 years ago

Removed for context

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.115  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.112    2 years ago
In "Whose" mind

Anyone capable of logical thought and analysis.

I've watched "Star Trek" enough to know...."Logic" isn't what it's all cracked up to be.

In other words, you dismiss logic because you don't understand it. Duly noted.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.116  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.113    2 years ago
You have every right to feel any way you personally choose.

It's not about how I feel. it's about what is factually true. And others see it too!

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.117  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.116    2 years ago

Sure.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.118  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.117    2 years ago

Glad you agree.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.1.119  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.90    2 years ago
I'm just curious, that's all, but it seems that this "curiosity" is considered by some to be a "personal attack" or "persecution" or "denigrating" and they refuse to entertain any kind of discussion unless it is "pro-religion".

It would be like an atheist getting all butt hurt about the religious claiming they believe in God.

"Hey! Why do you keep denigrating my non-belief with your claims that there is a God? Why do you keep attacking non-believers by suggesting there is a God and telling them how your God wants them to behave? Why are you so mean?! Waaaah!"

Get out of the kitchen if you can't stand the heat. Why come to these boards and profess your own beliefs if you can't stand to hear anyone disagree with you?

The reality is atheists are used to it, we live in a world where the vast majority have some form of belief in God even if they can't explain why. We're used to being told we must be vile sinners who have no reason to act properly without an invisible deity watching us.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.120  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.118    2 years ago

Sure as in I am sure that is what YOU believe.

belief doesn't equal fact.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.121  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.120    2 years ago

I've made no mention of my beliefs.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.122  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.119    2 years ago

I have never posted anything even REMOTELY close to that. I haven't seen on this comment thread where someone else has either.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.123  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.115    2 years ago
In other words, you dismiss logic because you don't understand it. Duly noted.

Is that what I did ?

Was that your "Logical" opinion ?

"Logic"...."Opinion".... two words that don't seem to go together do they.

So...what is "Logic" in the realm of human existence when it comes to real life living matters, for that matter anyway.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.124  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.121    2 years ago

Does opinion equal belief?

Your opinion is that I picked a fight.

I chose to say that means to me that you believe it.

Do you NOT believe that?

 
 
 
DRHunk
6.1.125  DRHunk  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.40    2 years ago

Whats wrong with The Flying Spaghetti Monster, are you trying to bash someone else's religious beliefs because they do not conform to your own idea about religion?

 
 
 
mocowgirl
6.1.126  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.94    2 years ago
Well, personally, I have never done anything like what you have described,

Do you have an issue with anyone denouncing the people who did and still do use religious beliefs to control, to harm and to kill others?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.127  Texan1211  replied to  DRHunk @6.1.125    2 years ago

If that is what people believe in, I don't have a problem with it, as anyone who has read my posts can attest to.

When they use that term as a substitute for God, in an attempt to belittle others' beliefs, or call people bible-babblers, then, YES, I take offense.

How many times and in how many ways can I make this clear?

I DON'T CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE BELIEVE IN. I AM NOT RECRUITING ANYONE. I AM NOT TELLING ANYONE WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN IS WRONG OR ILLOGICAL. I AM NOT CRITICISING ANYONE FOR HOW OR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN. I HAVE NEVER SAID THAT WHAT I BELIEVE IN IS RIGHT FOR ANYONE ELSE. IT WORKS FOR ME---PERIOD.

IS THAT REALLY SO HARD FOR SOME TO GRASP?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.128  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.126    2 years ago

I am responsible for MY actions, thought, and postings--not others. If you have any objections to what others post or do, please take it up with THEM.

I am no more responsible for past or future actions of others than today's Democrats are responsible for Jim Crow laws in the South before the Civil Rights Bill was passed, or Republicans of today are responsible for Nixon's illegal activities.

Thank you.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
6.1.129  Phoenyx13  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.127    2 years ago
IS THAT REALLY SO HARD FOR SOME TO GRASP?

apparently it is - same as it's hard for you to grasp that I DON'T CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE BELIEVE IN. I AM NOT RECRUITING ANYONE. I AM NOT TELLING ANYONE WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN IS WRONG. I AM NOT CRITICIZING ANYONE FOR HOW OR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN. I am simply asking questions about how they arrived to their beliefs and their thought processes behind it etc.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.1.130  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.122    2 years ago
I have never posted anything even REMOTELY close to that. I haven't seen on this comment thread where someone else has either.

"It is the demeaning and degrading of those that do believe in God. it is the silly name-calling like "Flying Spaghetti Monster" etc. that I take offense with."

"Your rather snarky comments have been duly noted."

"I suppose the difference is that I recognize my snarky comments (and yes, it was MEANT to be a little snarky), and you don't recognize your own comments "

"Why are we the petty ones when the usual crowd march in giving opinions? I believe in God!"

"As you can tell from some of the posts, some people have no respect for those who believe in God."

"When people can speak like decent human beings, I might feel like engaging them."

 
 
 
mocowgirl
6.1.131  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.127    2 years ago
I DON'T CARE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE BELIEVE IN.

I do when they use those beliefs to control, harm and kill others as has happened throughout history and is still happening in the United States and the Middle East.

Various sects of the Christian religion are vying to be top dog in the US.  Various sects of the Muslim religion are trying to annihilate one another in the Middle East.

Our Christian reps, in the US government, are selling high tech weapons to Saudi Arabia - the most oppressive Muslim controlled country in the world.  Saudi Arabia is using US weapons to kill their Muslim rivals for power in the Middle East.  

In reality, most conflicts revolve around men wanting more power and more money.  Religion is just a useful tool to mobilize the zealots from pray to slay mode.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.132  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.96    2 years ago

So by 'logic' you mean 'logic + human bias'?   Probably should not label that 'logic' then.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.133  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.132    2 years ago
Probably should not label that 'logic' then.

Why not ?

"Tradition" does not make ones logic better than another's.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.134  Texan1211  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.129    2 years ago

What possible difference could it make to you?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.135  Texan1211  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.130    2 years ago

And the posts of mine that you quoted--I stand behind them 100%.

I never told anyone they were wrong or stupid to believe as they wish. I never told anyone they were doomed to hell if they diodn;t believe a certain way. I never told anyone to change their mind.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.136  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.131    2 years ago

Well, that's all within your rights. Since I don't espouse those views you are disagreeing with, I am left wondering why you are addressing me on those issues that you seem to have with others.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.1.137  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.135    2 years ago
I never told anyone they were doomed to hell if they diodn;t believe a certain way. I never told anyone to change their mind.

And I never accused you of doing so.

I switched believer and non-believer positions for my example:

"Hey! Why do you keep denigrating my non-belief with your claims that there is a God? Why do you keep attacking non-believers by suggesting there is a God and telling them how your God wants them to behave? Why are you so mean?! Waaaah!"

So if switched back it would read:

"Hey! Why do you keep denigrating my belief with your claims that there is no God? Why do you keep attacking believers by suggesting there is no God and telling them how it doesn't matter how my God wants us to behave? Why are you so mean?! Waaaah!"

You see, I didn't accuse believers of telling others they "were doomed to hell" (though there are some who do), I pointed out how believers often say they feel they are under attack from non-believers for suggesting there is no God which is basically what you said:

"It is the demeaning and degrading of those that do believe in God. it is the silly name-calling like "Flying Spaghetti Monster" etc. that I take offense with."

The "Waaaah!" was added to demonstrate the tone I hear in many of those comments.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.138  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.133    2 years ago

Because logic fails when infected with emotions.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.139  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.124    2 years ago
Your opinion is that I picked a fight.

It's not just my "opinion." but you can deny it all you want.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.140  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.123    2 years ago
Is that what I did ?

id I stutter?

Was that your "Logical" opinion ?

I offered no opinion.

"Logic"...."Opinion".... two words that don't seem to go together do they.

Considering your apparent lack of understanding about logic, you hardly seem qualified or capable of making such a determination.

So...what is "Logic" in the realm of human existence when it comes to real life living matters, for that matter anyway.

Logic is a process of formal reasoning and based on rational thought. it ceases to be logic when emotion is introduced.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
6.1.141  Phoenyx13  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.134    2 years ago
What possible difference could it make to you?

who said it made a difference ? who said it had to have a purpose ? i'm not allowed to be curious now ? should i ask for your permission first to be curious about something so you can make sure that there could be a "possible difference" made with my curiosity ?

it's amazing that you seem to be stating that you've never been curious about anything. Curiosity doesn't always make a "possible difference" to a person or about a subject, sometimes a person is just curious about something.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.142  Texan1211  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.141    2 years ago

Sure thing. Just curious.

OOOOOOOkay.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
6.1.143  Phoenyx13  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.142    2 years ago

Sure thing. Just curious.

OOOOOOOkay.

i'm most certainly well aware of my motivations and reasons for my questions - certainly much better than you will ever be. can you point out to everyone any of my posts that are telling a person their beliefs are "stupid" or "wrong" or anything of that nature ? it'd be nice if you'd actually provide proof. i suppose if you can't - then you'd actually be wrong about my motivations and reasons for asking questions and that the reality does it exist that i just might be asking because i'm just curious.

now, is there anything else that i'm doing that you would like to complain and whine about or is it ok with you if i continue to just post and ask questions at my leisure ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.144  Texan1211  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.143    2 years ago

Do whatever you wish--by all means.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that anyone had stopped you from posting whatever it was you wanted to post.

Shame on them!

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.145  Texan1211  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.141    2 years ago

If something makes no difference to you, and doesn't have any purpose, what is the point of posting?

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
6.1.146  Phoenyx13  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.145    2 years ago
If something makes no difference to you, and doesn't have any purpose, what is the point of posting?

wait - it has to have a point all the time now too ? seriously ? does that mean every article has to have a point to ? what if there's no point - am i still allowed to post or will you still whine and complain about it ?

wow... there just seems to be some people out there who have to control everything others do and make sure there's an approved purpose and point to everything...

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that anyone had stopped you from posting whatever it was you wanted to post.

well you certainly seem to be trying to do so by trying to bully me into not posting and whining about my questions.

isn't it ironic that you are allowed to have your own personal reasons (that you won't explain, which is perfectly alright) for your religious beliefs and won't tell them to anyone (which is perfectly alright) but i'm not allowed to have my own personal reasons for asking questions and i simply have to have a sinister (supposedly) motive for asking questions ?

i would think that for someone who's very private with their own reasons for things - that they would be the first to respect someone else's privacy. Yes, i ask questions. Is anyone required to answer them ? No. And a few people have refused to answer them - which is perfectly fine. My reasons for asking these questions ? i'm curious. Have you ever been curious about anything ?

Shame on them!

i agree - shame on them !

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.147  Texan1211  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.146    2 years ago

I didn't say it had to have a point. Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote.

I truly apologize if you feel I have bullied you. That was never my intention. If my asking you questions was the cause of it, I will immediately stop asking you anything. Maybe you can do the same for me. 

Seems like we will both be happier if we not engage any further.

Agreed?

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
6.1.148  Phoenyx13  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.147    2 years ago

I didn't say it had to have a point. Perhaps you misunderstood what I wrote.

that's a good possibility, sometimes things aren't written as clearly as we think they are when we write them. It happens.

I truly apologize if you feel I have bullied you. That was never my intention.

thank you. i appreciate that :) if i was out of line or if you felt i was out of line - then i do apologize as well.

If my asking you questions was the cause of it, I will immediately stop asking you anything. Maybe you can do the same for me. 

Seems like we will both be happier if we not engage any further.

i don't necessarily agree with that - i think if we have a better understanding of viewpoints then we'd get along better (even if we disagree on certain topics). if you'll note - i won't ask you questions concerning your beliefs (i may have asked a couple previously) since you've stated that your beliefs are personal to you and you don't wish to discuss it (which is perfectly alright). But yes, i am curious about people who hold religious beliefs and how they came to have those beliefs etc.

Learning isn't a bad thing and i think it'd be a good thing to understand the viewpoints and thoughts of the religious so communication is more effective and common ground can be reached - this can't happen if there's the constant "i'm being attacked because you asked about my religious beliefs". I'm not trying to change anyone's beliefs or viewpoints or state that those beliefs are "stupid" or "wrong" or anything like that (the only time i have ever attacked the religious if when they use that religion as a weapon to attack others - example: same sex marriage), i am just genuinely curious as to how the religious came to hold their beliefs, their thought process, how they reconcile seemingly illogical things within their religion etc. It's not because i'm trying to make a difference or trying to have a purpose or sinister motive behind it - i'm literally just curious and i think learning from that curiosity would foster better communication and understanding (for most people anyway, there are some religious fanatics that i stay away from - they definitely scare me honestly)

but, bottom line, if you feel that it's better we don't engage any further - then let me know and i will respect your wishes and not engage you any further

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.149  Texan1211  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.148    2 years ago

I think that would be best--not engaging further.

Thank you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.150  Texan1211  replied to  katrix @6.1.44    2 years ago

Really appreciate you following up like that. 

Seems they didn't listen when you asked them to stop, so I figured it was open season, despite what you wrote only to me earlier.

 
 
 
Sparty On
6.1.151  Sparty On  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.107    2 years ago
Still no.

Unfortunately for you, it's still yes.

Since you are unable to provide either, then your statement is just BS!

Nope but the truth does seem to hurt you more than most.   You should work on that.   Personal growth is a good thing.

Incidentally i'll allow you the last word here ..... since i know that sort of thing is important to you.

Enjoy!  

 
 
 
mocowgirl
6.1.152  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.136    2 years ago
I am left wondering why you are addressing me on those issues that you seem to have with others.

I am wondering why I should not be addressing you on the issues that you raised that people who believe in Yahweh should be exempt from questions and ridicule.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.153  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.152    2 years ago

Because it is absolutely none of your business what anyone else besides yourself believes?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.154  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.152    2 years ago

I didn't do any of the things you complained about.

You are simply barking up the wrong tree.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.155  Gordy327  replied to  Sparty On @6.1.151    2 years ago
Keep believing that nonsense if it makes you feel better.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.156  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.140    2 years ago
I offered no opinion.

Probabilistic Logic then ?

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.157  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.156    2 years ago
Probabilistic Logic then ?

Nope, just simple fact. get back to me when you learn what logic is.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.158  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.157    2 years ago

Which type of "Logic" are you looking for. There are so many to choose from.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.159  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.158    2 years ago
Which type of "Logic" are you looking for. There are so many to choose from.

I thought logic was made quite clear, by myself and TiG. like I said, when you learn what logic is, get back to me.

 
 
 
DRHunk
6.1.160  DRHunk  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.127    2 years ago

If that is what people believe in, I don't have a problem with it, as anyone who has read my posts can attest to.

When they use that term as a substitute for God, in an attempt to belittle others' beliefs, or call people bible-babblers, then, YES, I take offense.

How many times and in how many ways can I make this clear?

 I AM NOT TELLING ANYONE WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN IS WRONG OR ILLOGICAL. I AM NOT CRITICISING ANYONE FOR HOW OR WHAT THEY BELIEVE IN.

IS THAT REALLY SO HARD FOR SOME TO GRASP?

Well when you say that and this "the childish names--"bible babblers" and "Flying spaghetti monster", etc. should stop"  Makes me think you do care and you do want to change their mind so they stop saying such things even though it is what their religion believes to Pastafarians GOD is the Flying Spaghetti Monster and you should respect that not be offended by it. That does not mean you cannot however engage them in a debate about their religion and how yours differs in an attempt to enlighten them on your beliefs.

Thoughts?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.161  Texan1211  replied to  DRHunk @6.1.160    2 years ago

Okay.

You believe that it a real religion, and that the people who use that term( Interestingly enough, ONLY when speaking to someone who DOES believe in God). 

meanwhile, I see it for what it really is---an insult and trying to make fun of what others believe ion.

You can pretend otherwise--that is your right.

If someone can not converse without the name-calling, I can certainly live without them.

Thoughts?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.162  Texan1211  replied to  DRHunk @6.1.160    2 years ago

I DON'T DEBATE OTHERS ABOUT their RELIGION--THAT IS stupid. iT ISN;T ANY OF my BUSINESS WHAT OTHERS BELIEVE.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.163  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.158    2 years ago

 
 
 
mocowgirl
6.1.164  mocowgirl  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.153    2 years ago
Because it is absolutely none of your business what anyone else besides yourself believes?

It is absolutely my businesses when anyone uses those religious beliefs as a basis to control and harm others.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.165  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.159    2 years ago
I thought logic was made quite clear,

I wouldn't have asked if you were actually "Clear".

Consistent Logic is not practical in normal life. We all aren't some higher up in some office, dictating what WILL BE Logical. Even illogical arguments use logically sounding statements. Like I've said....C3PO's we aren't....meaning You, or anyone else here for that matter. Regurgitation of what we have read or heard is the norm.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
6.1.166  mocowgirl  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.165    2 years ago
Regurgitation of what we have read or heard is the norm.

True.  One example is the indoctrination into the religious beliefs of our parents.

If your parents were Mormon, then you would have been raised believing that Joseph Smith spoke face-to-face with Yahweh.  If your parents were Baptists, you would be taught that Joseph Smith had not spoken face-to-face  with Yahweh.  Most likely, you would have been taught that Christian sects outside of your own were "false" or even cults.

http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Visions_of_Joseph_Smith

The Prophet Joseph Smith had his first vision at the age of fourteen while praying in a grove of trees in western New York (see  First Vision ). The appearance of the Lord to him, like that to Saul of Tarsus, was attended by a shining light from heaven ( Acts 9:3 ). The Lord spoke face-to-face with Joseph and called him to service. This was the first of a series of visions Joseph Smith received, many of which were shared with other persons. Blessed like John on the isle of Patmos and Paul who spoke of the third heavens, the Prophet Joseph Smith affirmed, "Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject" 

 
 
 
DRHunk
6.1.167  DRHunk  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.161    2 years ago

What I believe was not mentioned it is what they believe and your contradictory comments that you do not care what they believe yet you clearly do.

Pastafarians, Scientologists, Christians, Muslims, Jewish..etc all believe what they believe, and they all have a different way of expressing it.

Just because you do not like that one God is called Allah the other is called Flying Spaghetti monster and another is Xenu does not change the fact that yes you are offended by their beliefs because it is disparaging your Yahweh in some form or another and you want them to stop, and in them stopping they would have to accept that God (your God) is the one and true god and call him as such. 

So once again you do want to change their beliefs and you do care. The passive aggressive nature in which you are doing it on the other had is a different discussion.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.168  It Is ME  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.166    2 years ago

"Very little is needed to make a happy life; it is all within yourself, in your way of thinking. "

Marcus Aurelius

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.169  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.165    2 years ago
I wouldn't have asked if you were actually "Clear".

I can't make it any clearer than I already have. At this point, your lack of understanding is on you.

Consistent Logic is not practical in normal life.

it is a reasonable expectation in any discussion or argument, or other intellectual inquiry and exercise.

We all aren't some higher up in some office, dictating what WILL BE Logical.

It is what is, not what will be.

Even illogical arguments use logically sounding statements.

Anyone versed in logic may be able to pick up on that too and call it out.

Like I've said....C3PO's we aren't....meaning You, or anyone else here for that matter.

C3PO was quite emotional for a droid. I wouldn't use him as an example of logic.

Regurgitation of what we have read or heard is the norm.

That doesn't automatically make what is regurgitated logical. Especially if it's based on nothing more than belief or emotional appeal.

 
 
 
DRHunk
6.1.170  DRHunk  replied to  DRHunk @6.1.167    2 years ago

Had a thought, the way you (Texan) feel about Pastafarians god or Scientologists aliens and the organizations as a religion is probably pretty close to the way Atheists feel about your God and every other God or religion out there.

You and they are not so far apart, you just got stuck one more "God"  then they (Atheists) did.

They may feel just as offended when you mention God as you feel when the Flying Spaghetti Monster is mentioned and yea, they probably want it to also stop.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.171  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.165    2 years ago
Consistent Logic is not practical in normal life.

Of course not, people make mistakes.   But you seem to be dismissing logic itself - as if making a logically sound argument is not a good thing.    As if a circular or contradictory or unsound argument is okay and should be accepted because ... after all ... we are all human and perfect logic is impractical.

thumbs down

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.172  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.171    2 years ago

Humans are imperfect.

Humans dictate what is logical.

Thus Logic must be imperfect.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.173  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.172    2 years ago

Your second premise is unsupported.   You would have to prove that logic itself is imperfect.  For example, prove modus ponens itself wrong or faulty.   Do that and I predict you will be famous.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.174  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.169    2 years ago
it is a reasonable expectation in any discussion or argument, or other intellectual inquiry and exercise.

Whose standards are you going by to come to your Logical Conclusions ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.175  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.173    2 years ago
You would have to prove that logic itself is imperfect.

I ask you....

Who decides what is logical ?

God ?

Humans ?

Some other entity ?

There are so many Logical "Types" as dictated by Humans, after all. So back to my same premise.....Humans ARE "Imperfect" !

Am I wrong that Humans are Imperfect ?

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.176  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.174    2 years ago
Whose standards are you going by to come to your Logical Conclusions ?

When you understand what logic actually is, then you will see it is not based on "individual standards."

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.177  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.176    2 years ago
When you understand what logic actually is, then you will see it is not based on "individual standards."

Logic is based on "MANY" differing standards, as set by "MANY" different individual Human ideas !

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.178  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.177    2 years ago
Logic is based on "MANY" differing standards, as set by "MANY" different individual Human ideas !

No, it's not. Once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of logic.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.179  Tessylo  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.178    2 years ago
'Logic is based on "MANY" differing standards, as set by "MANY" different individual Human ideas !'
In what alternate universe?

What the what?

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.180  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.178    2 years ago
No, it's not. Once again, you demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of logic.

Yes it is !

Which Perfect human are you basing your Opinionated Logic on again ?

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.181  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.178    2 years ago

I do not think it is possible to explain or even reason with someone who is claiming that logic itself is flawed.   That probably is the most absurd position one can take, right?  Implicitly this would mean that all formal systems are flawed since all are founded in logic.  For example, arithmetic is flawed and should not be trusted.   

Run away ... this will scar your brain tissue Gordy.     Party

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.182  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.179    2 years ago
What the what?

I know.....It's hard ain't it. confused

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.183  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.181    2 years ago
I do not think it is possible to explain or even reason with someone who is claiming that logic itself cannot be trusted.

I NEVER said anything of the sort !

I Proposed that Logic can be "Imperfect" !

All I proposed is that there "MUST" be flaws in logic, basing that "Logical" conclusion on the "FACT" that Humans are Imperfect and Humans are the one's that propose to us what is "Logical" !

if that "Offended" you....so be it !

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.184  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.134    2 years ago
What possible difference could it make to you?

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.185  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.181    2 years ago
Run away ... this will scar your brain tissue Gordy.

The stupid . . . it burns!

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.186  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.183    2 years ago
I NEVER said anything of the sort !

True, you wrote it:

  It Is ME   @ 6.1.172   -   Humans are imperfect.   Humans dictate what is logical.    Thus Logic must be imperfect .

thumbs up

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.187  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.186    2 years ago

I never said anything about "Trust"....did I.

Even "Your" logic has imperfections. Big hugs

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.188  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.182    2 years ago
I know.....It's hard ain't it.

No, it's illogical. winking

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.189  It Is ME  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.185    2 years ago
The stupid . . . it burns!

Then don't do that....logically speaking that is. close call

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.190  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.188    2 years ago
No, it's illogical.

"Humans do have an amazing capacity for believing what they choose, and excluding that which is painful."
- Spock

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.191  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.181    2 years ago
Implicitly this would mean that all formal systems are flawed since all are founded in logic.

We should all back away from our computers....now...slowly....

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.192  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.191    2 years ago

... and get out the antiseptic spray so you do not catch any of it.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.193  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.181    2 years ago
I do not think it is possible to explain or even reason with someone who is claiming that logic itself is flawed.

Well, we did try.

That probably is the most absurd position one can take, right?

Absolutely.

Implicitly this would mean that all formal systems are flawed since all are founded in logic. For example, arithmetic is flawed and should not be trusted.

"Logic" is dependent on individual and subjectively determined parameters. In other words, logic is not really logical, but rather logic is illogical in nature. stunned  

Run away ... this will scar your brain tissue Gordy.

I'm reminded of

"> this scene from Star Trek (especially at the 1:30 mark)

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.194  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.180    2 years ago
Which Perfect human are you basing your Opinionated Logic on again ?

You have yet to understand that logic itself is not based on opinion or subjective personal preferences, emotions, or beliefs.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.195  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.194    2 years ago

I've seen this movie before. It's long, drawn-out movie that doesn't end until the logical people in the room walk away with a migraine.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.196  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.194    2 years ago
You have yet to understand that logic itself is not based on opinion or subjective personal preferences, emotions, or beliefs.

Which calculation did you use to come up with that ?

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.197  It Is ME  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.195    2 years ago
I've seen this movie before. It's long, drawn-out movie that doesn't end until the logical people in the room walk away with a migraine.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.198  Gordy327  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.195    2 years ago
It's long, drawn-out movie that doesn't end until the logical people in the room walk away with a migraine.

Dealing with other peoples, shall we say "willful ignorance," does give me a headache sometimes.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.199  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.196    2 years ago
Which calculation did you use to come up with that ?

This has already been explained to you, both by myself and TiG. At this point, your continued inability to grasp the simple concept of logic is like us talking to a wall.

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
6.1.200  Phoenyx13  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.199    2 years ago
This has already been explained to you, both by myself and TiG. At this point, your continued inability to grasp the simple concept of logic is like us talking to a wall.

i'm definitely not sure at this point whether to laughing dude  or to crying

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.201  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.198    2 years ago

Which is why I just can't deal with him anymore.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.202  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.198    2 years ago
"willful ignorance,"

Logically speaking that is.... ?

It’s easy for some to quickly go to the first and most obvious conclusion in any sort of conversation. After all, no one wants to be wrong, do they.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.203  Gordy327  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.1.200    2 years ago

Perhaps a little bit of both.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.204  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.202    2 years ago

Once again, you make little sense and continue to demonstrate ignorance of logic.

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.205  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.201    2 years ago

Best to not take him seriously ... obviously this is a game of some sort.  Not sure I can appreciate how this might be 'fun' but quite an unfortunate number of people engage in feigned obtuseness.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.206  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.199    2 years ago

That's your Conclusion, and your right to feel that way. Doesn't make you correct.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.207  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.1.191    2 years ago
'Implicitly this would mean that all formal systems are flawed since all are founded in logic.'

'We should all back away from our computers....now...slowly....

laughing dude

You're cute.  I like you.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.208  Tessylo  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.206    2 years ago

'That's your Conclusion, and your right to feel that way. Doesn't make you correct.'

THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE

THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE

THAT DOES NOT COMPUTE

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.209  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.206    2 years ago
That's your Conclusion,

Oh, I doubt it's just mine.

and your right to feel that way.

My "feelings" has nothing to do with anything.

Doesn't make you correct.

Except that I am.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.210  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.205    2 years ago
Best to not take him seriously ...

How can anyone take him seriously, especially after all that tripe regarding logic he posted?

obviously this is a game of some sort. Not sure I can appreciate how this might be 'fun' but quite an unfortunate number of people engage in feigned obtuseness.

I suppose some people are not interested in actual discussions. They just want to argue for argument's sake.

 
 
 
Skrekk
6.1.211  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.40    2 years ago
I believe in God. I don't care if they do or not. I am never going to be trying to change their minds as it would be a total waste of time. But the childish names--"bible babblers" and "Flying spaghetti monster", etc. should stop.

You remind me of someone I used to debate, a guy who insisted that everyone capitalize the word "god".    He was quite irate that he couldn't control how other people referred to his silly superstitions and that they wouldn't buy into his assumption that one and only one invisible sky fairy existed.    His superstitions demanded respect!

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.212  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.209    2 years ago
Except that I am.

Based on....your perception ?

"My "feelings" has nothing to do with anything."

But it does play into your comment !

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.213  Gordy327  replied to  Skrekk @6.1.211    2 years ago
You remind me of someone I used to debate, a guy who insisted that everyone capitalize the word "god".

I think I remember someone like that, although the name escapes me. He got pissed at me every time I didn't capitalize "god." He actually demanded I capitalize god.

 His superstitions demanded respect!

But they (and he) deserved none!

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.214  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.212    2 years ago
But it does play into your comment !

That must be your perception

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.215  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.204    2 years ago
Once again, you make little sense and continue to demonstrate ignorance of logic.

If that's how you "Feel", so be it !

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.216  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.214    2 years ago
That must be your perception.

And ?

Ditto !

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.217  Texan1211  replied to  mocowgirl @6.1.164    2 years ago

Well, then, kindly direct your comments to THEM. 

I don't do any of that, so making the comments to me is rather pointless.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.218  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @6.1.211    2 years ago

I have insisted no such thing.

I don't CARE how you term God for yourself. I think it is in extremely poor taste and very rude to refer to Him as such, but, hey, whatever gets you off.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.219  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.215    2 years ago
If that's how you "Feel", so be it

In addition to not understanding logic, you apparently don't understand what I said. Or just didn't pay attention.

And?

You're still wrong!

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.220  It Is ME  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.219    2 years ago
You're still wrong!

'Perfectionism becomes a badge of honor with you playing the part of the suffering hero. "

David D. Burns

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.221  Gordy327  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.220    2 years ago

You must be projecting. You certainly have nothing of value or relevance to offer anymore (if you ever did to begin with).

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
6.1.222  Trout Giggles  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.221    2 years ago

Just back away....slowly....

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.223  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.218    2 years ago
I don't CARE how you term God for yourself. I think it is in extremely poor taste and very rude to refer to Him as such,

Apparently, you do care. Otherwise, you wouldn't criticize Skrekk for how he refers to god or emphasize "care" so much. He's not wrong either.

 
 
 
Skrekk
6.1.224  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.218    2 years ago
I think it is in extremely poor taste and very rude to refer to Him as such, but, hey, whatever gets you off.

Can't your imaginary friend speak for Himself?   If He's offended then He can text me or send me an email rather than burning a bush.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.225  Gordy327  replied to  Skrekk @6.1.224    2 years ago
Can't your imaginary friend speak for Himself?

Don't you know Skrekk, imaginary friends always need their actual human imagineers to speak for them. Otherwise, imaginary friends wouldn't be imaginary anymore. winking

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.226  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.213    2 years ago

So because I believe in God, I don't "deserve" respect?

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.227  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.226    2 years ago
So because I believe in God, I don't "deserve" respect?

Wow, a tad sensitive, aren't we? That's not what I said. I said the belief itself is not automatically deserving of respect. But I do respect your right to believe whatever you want.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.228  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @6.1.224    2 years ago

Deleted

What does what I believe in affect you in any way, shape or form?

Deleted - Skirting  {SP}

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.229  Tessylo  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.228    2 years ago

Removed for context {SP}

 
 
 
GregTx
6.1.230  GregTx  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.220    2 years ago

That was interesting.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
6.1.231  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.220    2 years ago

Logic: noun - reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

What I think you're trying to say is that there can be differences of opinion on the "validity" of something. One has to agree on a set of facts in order to make logical deductions. The problem is some refuse to accept some things as fact that most other persons do.

For example, if you believe without evidence that the decay rates of most radioactive materials have changed dramatically in the last few thousand years, you can dismiss the conclusions others have drawn about the logical age of the earth and universe. You could defend a young earth creationists view by dismissing what most others consider facts. Debating such a person is pointless because if they won't agree to work with the same set of facts then you cannot come to any logical conclusions.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.232  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.227    2 years ago

We??You got a mouse in your pocket?

Y'all are just plain rude.

I'll pray for you.

have a nice day.

 
 
 
Tessylo
6.1.233  Tessylo  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @6.1.137    2 years ago
'The "Waaaah!" was added to demonstrate the tone I hear in many of those comments.'

Funny, that's what I hear too.

laughing dude

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.234  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @6.1.229    2 years ago

removed for context

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.235  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.232    2 years ago
We??

"We" as in "you."

You got a mouse in your pocket?

No, just 37 cents in change. Ooh, a quarter.

Y'all are just plain rude.

How so, especially considering the previous comments were not directed at you?

I'll pray for you.

Don't bother. I neither want nor need your prayers.

have a nice day.

Thanks. I usually do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.236  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.235    2 years ago

I will pray. For you.

And for patience to deal with people like you.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.237  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.236    2 years ago
I will pray. For you.

Now who's being rude? Especially since I said I prefer to not be prayed for.

And for patience to deal with people like you.

if you're so bothered, you're free to not post or engage in discussion here.

 
 
 
Skrekk
6.1.238  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.228    2 years ago
What does what I believe in affect you in any way, shape or form?

It doesn't, at least not as long as you don't vote to use the state to enforce the sharia laws of your particular cult and you don't otherwise use your superstitions to harm other people.     After all you do live in a state run by conservative bible-babblers who do use the secular government to enforce their sharia laws.

But I wonder why you think my views about your imaginary friend affect you, particularly since I fully support your right to believe whatever superstitious nonsense you like.    Are you uncertain in your faith or do you expect it to be unchallenged merely because it's a common superstition?

.

So because I believe in God, I don't "deserve" respect?

Certainly those superstitions don't deserve respect per se, they merely deserve legal tolerance just like the superstitions of Scientologists and Raelians.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.239  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.237    2 years ago


You were being patronizing to me. I won't stand for that without calling you out on it.

I will pray for whatever and whomever I want--with or without YOUR blessings.

I am also quite free to post on here if I want. Deal with it.

or not.

I don't care what you do.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.240  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @6.1.238    2 years ago

I will vote for whatever and whomever I choose to vote for, and there isn't a thing that you can about it.

Only loons worry about the mythological "Christian Sharia laws".

it must be rough living in fear all the time that someone somewhere might vote based on their own personal beliefs and principles.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.241  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.239    2 years ago
You were being patronizing to me.

How so?

I won't stand for that without calling you out on it.

More like I called you out for contradicting yourself.

I will pray for whatever and whomever I want--with or without YOUR blessings.

It's funny how you complain others are being rude, when you're doing the exact same thing.

I am also quite free to post on here if I want. Deal with it.

I never said you weren't free to do so. I simply said you didn't have to post if you can't deal with it here.

I don't care what you do.

You certainly seem to care what others do or say.

Only loons worry about the mythological "Christian Sharia laws".

Considering it's mainly certain Christians that want to impose their religious based beliefs into our laws, such as no abortion or no same sex marriage (among others), I'd say those "Christian sharia laws" is not as "mythical" as you seem to think. 

 
 
 
Skrekk
6.1.242  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.240    2 years ago
Only loons worry about the mythological "Christian Sharia laws".

Strange then that just to gain equal civil rights so many minorities have had to fight against the Christian sharia laws which conservatives in your Jim Crow state passed.

And it's very revealing that the bigoted bible-babblers who control your state government have adamantly refused to repeal those Christian sharia laws even after the federal courts struck them down as blatantly unconstitutional.   Some of those bible-babblers have even recently tried to get new Christian sharia laws passed with the help of your governor and Lt governor.....like their attempt to deny standard employment marital benefits to same-sex spouses.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.243  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.241    2 years ago

Using "we" as you did was patronizing.

we (wē)
pron.
1. Used by the speaker or writer to indicate the speaker or writer along with another or others as the subject: We made it to the lecture hall on time. We are planning a trip to Arizona this winter.
2. Used to refer to people in general, including the speaker or writer: "How can we enter the professions and yet remain civilized human beings?" (Virginia Woolf).
3. Used instead of I, especially by a writer wishing to reduce or avoid a subjective tone.
4. Used instead of I, especially by an editorialist, in expressing the opinion or point of view of a publication's management.
5. Used instead of I by a sovereign in formal address to refer to himself or herself.
6. Used instead of you in direct address, especially to imply a patronizing camaraderie with the addressee: How are we feeling today?

Have a good day.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.244  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @6.1.242    2 years ago

Tell you what--if you don't like Texas, please stay out of it.

Then it has no impact on you.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.245  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.243    2 years ago
Using "we" as you did was patronizing.

Like I said, "a tad sensitive." But, if that's how you want to take it, that's up to you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.246  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.245    2 years ago

If by using "we", you meant me and you, then you wouldn't have responded to my comment "Do you have a mouse in your pocket" like you did.

So you meant it to be condescending. 

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.247  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.246    2 years ago
If by using "we", you meant me and you, then you wouldn't have responded to my comment "Do you have a mouse in your pocket" like you did. So you meant it to be condescending

You are reading into it way too much. Oh well, see my post 6.1.245.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.248  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.247    2 years ago

Saw it.

read it.

Wasn't impressed.

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.249  epistte  replied to  magnoliaave @6.1.39    2 years ago
There are five, to be sure, who love to contradict anything and everything to do with Christianity.

It seems that you feel that you are being persecuted for your beliefs.

Are there other theistic religious beliefs that get a pass for believing in unproven gods when Christianity is criticized?

 
 
 
Skrekk
6.1.250  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.244    2 years ago
Tell you what--if you don't like Texas, please stay out of it.

Sorry but your state richly deserves all the ridicule it gets on civil rights issues.    Its continuing efforts to enact and enforce Jim Crow laws against certain minorities are truly reprehensible.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
6.1.251  magnoliaave  replied to  epistte @6.1.249    2 years ago

All of them as I don't other religions unless they are violent. And, then, I judge the person.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.252  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @6.1.250    2 years ago

Guess what?

Texans don't give two shits about non-Texan opinions of our state.

It's a Texas thing.

You wouldn't understand.

 
 
 
Skrekk
6.1.253  Skrekk  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.252    2 years ago
Texans don't give two shits about non-Texan opinions of our state.

You folks certainly have never given a shit about the opinions of the federal courts.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.254  Texan1211  replied to  Skrekk @6.1.253    2 years ago

Cry me a river.

Don't like it, stay the heck out.

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.255  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.29    2 years ago
Harry Potter is fiction, so no, a credible, sane individual wouldn't consider that as a source on magic.

Are zombies now a fact, or did Jesus rise from the dead just because you believe that the Bible is true, despite any corroboration?

Would you also consider the The Walking Dead to be science fiction or is it now a documentary? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.256  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @6.1.255    2 years ago

You can ask all the stupid questions you want.

Hope you find the answers you want to hear.

I will pray for your enlightenment on those questions!

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.257  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.256    2 years ago
I will pray for your enlightenment on those questions!

What I asked is not a stupid question. I am testing the validity of your beliefs. Why is it that you state that Harry Potter is fiction but turn around and believe that the miracles and the resurrection of the Bible are factual, despite any corroborating proof of either the various miracles or the resurrection of Jesus on the 3rd day?  

If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead then why can't other people rise from the dead and exist as zombies?

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.258  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @6.1.257    2 years ago

See all images
Share
Harry Potter
Harry Potter is a series of fantasy novels written by British author J. K. Rowling.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.259  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @6.1.257    2 years ago

And I'll keep praying for your enlightenment!

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.260  TᵢG  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.258    2 years ago

Epistte is illustrating that the Bible, like other books, is first a book just like Harry Potter, The Iliad and the Odyssey, The Book of Mormon, etc.   Its demonstrable flaws suggest that it is the work of men and not the inspired word of a perfect god.    That is, the Bible itself serves as evidence that it is not divine.   Conversely, there is no evidence that the Bible is divine - people believe it is divine simply because the Bible claims itself divine and human beings claim it is divine.   Claims sans evidence of any kind.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.261  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.260    2 years ago

So....."Humans" are flawed ?

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
6.1.262  Release The Kraken  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.261    2 years ago

Yes of course they are. I mean one shouldn't have to lean at a 30 degree angle to pee in the mornings.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.263  It Is ME  replied to  Release The Kraken @6.1.262    2 years ago
Yes of course they are.

Logic tells us so ! 

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.264  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.261    2 years ago

Oh, nuts, you are correct.   Humans are perfect.   My mistake.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.265  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.264    2 years ago
Humans are perfect.

They are ?

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.266  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.265    2 years ago

Maybe we do make mistakes.   I guess we are imperfect - flawed creatures after all.

 
 
 
It Is ME
6.1.267  It Is ME  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.266    2 years ago

"Logic' comes from what certain "Humans" perceive to be logical.

"Logic: The art of thinking and reasoning in strict accordance with the limitations and incapacities of the human misunderstanding."

Ambrose Bierce

 
 
 
TᵢG
6.1.268  TᵢG  replied to  It Is ME @6.1.267    2 years ago

Is arithmetic subjective?   Does 1+2 = 3 for some but something else for others?   Logic (the universal formal system) is at the core of all other formal systems (e.g. arithmetic).   

Interpretation is subjective, not (formal) logic itself.   

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.269  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.173    2 years ago
Your second premise is unsupported.   You would have to prove that logic itself is imperfect.  For example, prove modus ponens itself wrong or faulty.   Do that and I predict you will be famous.

He'll never understand this statement.

http://www.philosophy-index.com/logic/forms/modus-ponens.php
 
 
 
epistte
6.1.270  epistte  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.260    2 years ago
Conversely, there is no evidence that the Bible is divine - people believe it is divine simply because the Bible claims itself divine and human beings claim it is divine.

That argument is a textbook example of a circular argument. "The bible is true because it says that it is true."

How is it possible that the Bible is a literal work of a divine god when the various books were written, compiled and edited by mortal men who had never met god?

Saying that it is inspired by God is an unproven attemp to cite the divine.

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.271  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.258    2 years ago
Harry Potter is a series of fantasy novels written by British author J. K. Rowling.

How is the Bible also not a fantasy novel? There is no empirical proof of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as the son of god. Many of the letters of Paul are fictional as well as Revelations. Genesis is obviously fictional, despite your belief. 

The Bible is the best selling work of historical fiction ever written. It has also caused millions of deaths by people who incorrectly believe that it is factual. 

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.272  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.259    2 years ago
And I'll keep praying for your enlightenment!

What form of enlightenment do I lack? I doubt that you are referring to me becoming a bodhisattva.

Maybe you should pray to your god that I stop being a humanist. Check back in 4 weeks to see if your prayer was answered.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.273  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @6.1.271    2 years ago

I have made no claims about the Bible.

Did you think I did?

And what I pray for is enlightenment--that you find the answers you seek. No matter what it is you are seeking answers to.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.274  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.258    2 years ago
Harry Potter is a series of fantasy novels written by British author J. K. Rowling.

And the bible is a series of fantasy stories written by Bronze Age sheepherders. Some of those stories aren't even all that original either.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.275  Texan1211  replied to  TᵢG @6.1.260    2 years ago

I have made no claims regarding the Bible.

Argue with someone else.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.276  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.274    2 years ago

I have made no claims regarding the Bible. Argue someone else.

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.277  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.276    2 years ago
I have made no claims regarding the Bible.

It doesn't really matter. My statement still stands.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.278  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.277    2 years ago

And?

I should care because?????

 
 
 
Gordy327
6.1.279  Gordy327  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.278    2 years ago
I should care because??

I never said you had to.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.280  Texan1211  replied to  Gordy327 @6.1.279    2 years ago

Well, great!

Now we're both happy!

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.281  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.273    2 years ago
And what I pray for is enlightenment--that you find the answers you seek. No matter what it is you are seeking answers to.

Don't try to be obtuse because you are not that good. This attempt to divert attention is a common tactic of yours and it doesn't work.

If you didn't make claims regarding the bible then you would not have been so outraged when I said the Bible and Harry Potter were not different. We were not discussing Harry Potter until you brought it up. The discussion is about the concept of original sin as referenced in the Bible.

And what I pray for is enlightenment--that you find the answers you seek. No matter what it is you are seeking answers to.

This idea is illogical.  I do not seek religious enlightenment and intelligence isn't gained by prayer. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.282  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @6.1.281    2 years ago

I never made any claims about the Bible. I believe you are projecting again.

Is it your standard practice to accuse someone of statements they never make, and then argue it?

Please list all the claims I have made about the Bible. Please include what pot of mine they came from. Since you claimed I did it, I am POSITIVE you'll be able to back your claim up with facts.

I would NEVER pray for someone to have a spiritual awakening or enlightenment. And what I pray for is MY business--not yours.

 
 
 
epistte
6.1.283  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @6.1.282    2 years ago
Please list all the claims I have made about the Bible. Please include what pot of mine they came from. Since you claimed I did it, I am POSITIVE you'll be able to back your claim up with facts.

You logically cannot discuss God, original sin or the Christian religion without referencing the Bible, so go try to sell your spin elsewhere because I'm not buying it.  I don't care how mad you get or how outrageous your claims are so you most certainly were referncing the Bible unless your replies were off-topic. .  You have forfeited any claim to rationality.

I'd prefer that you don't pray for me, but knock yourself out if you choose to do so.

 
 
 
Texan1211
6.1.284  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @6.1.283    2 years ago

Like I stated earlier---list ANY posts where I have referenced the Bible as you claimed.

Since you can't, it must not have been a true statement.

Which, of course, I already knew.

And I don't see anyone mad here.

You must be projecting, again.

Sigh.

SOSDD

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
7  Release The Kraken    2 years ago

I always thought

"> Original Sin was a song by INXS.

 
 
 
charger 383
8  charger 383    2 years ago

Something made up so preachers could tell people they were born guilty

 
 
 
luther28
8.1  luther28  replied to  charger 383 @8    2 years ago

Irish Catholic ( until as one said, I reached the age of reason), if we were not born guilty then the Nuns did a fine job of making us so.

 
 
 
magnoliaave
8.2  magnoliaave  replied to  charger 383 @8    2 years ago

Not in the Baptist Church.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.2.1  sandy-2021492  replied to  magnoliaave @8.2    2 years ago

It was in the Freewill Baptist church I grew up in.

The only way to avoid going to Hell was to repent your sins, and you were sinful from the time you were born.  Period.  You might not be held accountable for those sins until you were considered old enough to understand them, but you were sinful, whether you knew it or not.  That church taught that Jesus didn't cry, because a baby's crying was sinful.

 
 
 
Skrekk
8.2.2  Skrekk  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.2.1    2 years ago

I know they're not all like this but I think one of the churches which recently decided not to perform a wedding for a mixed-race couple was a Free Will Baptist.

To me that would qualify as "original sin."

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
8.2.3  sandy-2021492  replied to  Skrekk @8.2.2    2 years ago

That wouldn't surprise me.

Most of the churches Mom took me to as a child were Baptist of some sort, or nondenominational with Baptist leanings.  And they were all the hellfire-and-brimstone sort, where even if you'd committed no outward sin, you surely must have had sinful thoughts, and therefore deserved to roast.  And avoiding outward sin was damn near impossible.  You could be the "goodyest" goody-two-shoes that ever was, but you were still going to Hell, because you were born evil. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
8.2.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @8.2.1    2 years ago
It was in the Freewill Baptist church I grew up in.

It was that way in every Protestant church I ever went to. That's the basis for Christianity, otherwise, what was the point in Jesus sacrificing himself for mankind?

 
 
 
cjcold
8.3  cjcold  replied to  charger 383 @8    2 years ago

As if I couldn't feel guilty on my own.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9  Dismayed Patriot    2 years ago

"Getting past the writings which claim that Eve was at fault for tempting Adam - when it was Adam, not Eve, who supposedly ate from the tree of knowledge, making it his fault if we accept the idea of personal responsibility"

"4 Then the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate." - Genesis 3:4-6

So first, Eve supposedly did eat of the fruit first.

"12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat." Genesis 3:12

I find it interesting that Adam, having apparently just learned how to sin, is already blaming God for his sin by saying "It was the woman YOU GAVE ME".

So the original sin, according to the bible, was disobeying God as he gave them only two things they were not supposed to do, eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad or eat of the tree of life. If they had eaten of the tree of life, according to the bible, they would have become immortal.

"After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life." Genesis 3:24

Now supposedly, because both Adam and Eve ate of the fruit, all their children inherited their "original sin" and thus mankind was born into sin and thus all humans (until Christ was born without a human father) inherited this sin and thus had a need for the redemption sacrifice Christ would make washing our sin away with his blood.

The primary problem I find in this premise, especially for Catholics who baptize their babies as quick as they can so that if the baby dies it will have its inherited sin washed away and be able to go to heaven, is that it conflicts with evolution and the theory that Genesis is an allegory. If Adam and Eve were not the very first humans directly created as is by God, and as our DNA shows the human race never got below several thousand during our evolution, then sin would not be inherited to all men since many would be descended from other ancestors, not just the two who sinned. That means there is no inherited sin for all and Christ's ransom sacrifice is unnecessary and pointless.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9    2 years ago
That means there is no inherited sin for all

Or it's just so diluted that it's minuscule and doesn't even matter

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1    2 years ago
it's just so diluted that it's minuscule and doesn't even matter

I suppose one could imagine that perhaps the Neanderthals were Adams offspring and most humans have between .5% to 4% Neanderthal DNA. So those who believe that can go get their DNA checked and find out how much sin they inherited.

I've always wanted to write a fictional alternate based on the Genesis account, the "what if?" account of Adam and Eve eating of the tree of life instead of the tree of the knowledge of good and bad. We'd have some immortal humans who would have no clue what was right or wrong. The end objective of course would be eventually gaining the fruit from the tree of knowledge and having their eyes opened, truly becoming Gods in their own right, immortal and being able to choose good or bad.

One might wonder at Gods supposed wisdom of placing those two trees within humans reach, it seems pretty irresponsible to me.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.1    2 years ago

It was a test. Gods are always testing humans

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.3  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.2    2 years ago
It was a test. Gods are always testing humans

"Teste teste, one two..."

Speaking of which, Genesis claims that Adam was created first and was alone for a time before Eve was created from Adams rib because Adam was lonely and saw the other animals with their mates and wanted a mate of his own. So my question is, when did Adam receive his genitals? If Eve was an afterthought, what need would Adam have had for genitals with no Eve? That would be like creating a lamp with an electrical plug before inventing the electrical wall socket.

So either Adam was created as a eunuch and God added the hardware while he took Adams rib, or we're supposed to believe that Adam was created with a vestigial organ.

 
 
 
TᵢG
9.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.3    2 years ago

... and why did the other animals have mates and not man?

So my question is, when did Adam receive his genitals?

It does not take much logical probing to find reasons to question the divinity of the Bible (and other holy books).

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @9.1.4    2 years ago
.. and why did the other animals have mates and not man?

Not to mention, if man was created in god's image, then does god have an umbilicus? An appendix? Genitals himself? Ect.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.3    2 years ago

Good question

 
 
 
katrix
9.1.7  author  katrix  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.1    2 years ago

Maybe the Neanderthals were the people in the land of Nod?  But then, where does that leave the Denovesians (sp?)?

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.8  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  katrix @9.1.7    2 years ago
Maybe the Neanderthals were the people in the land of Nod?

Could be the Denisovans might have been the descendants of Adam while the Neanderthals were the children of the Nephilim. The bible claims they were all wiped out in a global flood but there is no geological evidence of a global flood in the last 175,000 years so at best it was likely a regional flood. Of course, if Neanderthals are the descendants of the Nephilim, that means most humans have a small amount of alien DNA. There's nothing more alien than a demon coming to earth and mating with the daughters of man. Technically the bible is claiming alien creatures came from the sky and probed humans long before the National Enquirer could report on it...

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.8    2 years ago
that means most humans have a small amount of alien DNA.

Perhaps that is the result of Emperor Xenu bringing billions of his people to Earth from the Galactic Confederacy. Laugh

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.10  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.9    2 years ago
Perhaps that is the result of Emperor Xenu bringing billions of his people to Earth from the Galactic Confederacy

That's just as likely as demons mating with humans making half-breed demigods. There are other cultures and religions that made similar claims, I mean, what was Hercules if not a Nephilim?

 
 
 
Skrekk
9.1.11  Skrekk  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.3    2 years ago
If Eve was an afterthought, what need would Adam have had for genitals with no Eve?

The genitalia are for his buddy Steve to enjoy.

 
 
 
Skrekk
9.1.12  Skrekk  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.10    2 years ago
That's just as likely as demons mating with humans making half-breed demigods.

Or the traditional 7th Day Adventist claim that black folks are the product of sex between humans and other animals, an "amalgamation."

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.10    2 years ago
That's just as likely as demons mating with humans

Someone actually told me once (and they were completely serious too) that demons mating with humans is the reason why sin exists in humans. I swear I am not making that up.

 
 
 
katrix
9.1.14  author  katrix  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.5    2 years ago
Not to mention, if man was created in god's image, then does god have an umbilicus? An appendix? Genitals himself? Ect.

I usually get told I'm disgusting when I bring that up - but if god is a "he" then he would have a penis, one would think.  Just as Jesus would most likely have been married and had sex - and why would that matter?  Some people act like they couldn't worship him if he had had sex.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  Skrekk @9.1.12    2 years ago
Or the traditional 7th Day Adventist claim that black folks are the product of sex between humans and other animals, an "amalgamation."

Weren't black people the punishment against white people who failed or refused cleanliness? Because of their refusal, God "cursed" them to "look dirty" forever? I do not remember which denomination held that particular view. That's about as wacky a religious view as demons mating with humans is.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  katrix @9.1.14    2 years ago
Some people act like they couldn't worship him if he had had sex.

Don't you know, that's because sex is sinful and dirty. Since Jesus was pure and without sin, he couldn't have sex. Right? winking

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.17  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.15    2 years ago
Weren't black people the punishment against white people who failed or refused cleanliness?

I think the most common religious belief about black people was that they were somehow the "Sons of Cain" who had murdered Able his brother and was "cursed by God" to wander the wilderness that they assume was Africa. There are some religious groups who still hold to that belief. It helps them cope with pretending to be caring, loving Christians while also being monumental racists.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.17    2 years ago

Well, that is as absurd a belief as any other.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.19  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.16    2 years ago
Don't you know, that's because sex is sinful and dirty.

"Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His chest at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray You?” John 21:20

The only thing worse to most Christians than implying Christ may have been married is pointing out he wandered around for several years with a small group of men who he was apparently very friendly with...

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
9.1.20  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.18    2 years ago
Well, that is as absurd a belief as any other.

"At some point after the start of the slave trade in the United States , many Protestant denominations began teaching the belief that the mark of Cain was a dark skin tone, although early descriptions of Romani as "descendants of Cain" written by Franciscan monk Symon Semeonis suggest that this belief had existed for some time. Protestant preachers wrote exegetical analyses of the curse, with the assumption that it was dark skin."

"The Curse of Cain was often conflated with the Curse of Ham . According to the Bible, Ham discovered his father Noah drunk and naked in his tent, but instead of honoring his father by covering his nakedness, he ran and told his brothers about it. Because of this, Noah cursed Ham's son, Canaan by saying that he was to be "a servant of servants". ( Genesis 9:20-27 ) One interpretation of this passage states that Ham married a descendant of Cain, who was black, so that the descendants of Canaan were both marked with black skin and cursed to be servants of servants. While there is no indication in the Bible of Ham's wife descending from Cain, this interpretation was used to justify slavery and it was particularly popular in America during the Atlantic slave trade "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

That's seriously ignorant stuff some Christians have believed to justify their own evil.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
9.1.21  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.13    2 years ago
Someone actually told me once (and they were completely serious too) that demons mating with humans is the reason why sin exists in humans.

I was told on the Vine that that's how diseases were introduced to humanity - we originally had "perfect" DNA, whatever the hell that is, and therefore had no diseases (cuz all diseases are genetic, ya know) and long life spans.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
9.1.22  sandy-2021492  replied to  Gordy327 @9.1.15    2 years ago
Weren't black people the punishment against white people who failed or refused cleanliness?

Or they bear the "mark of Cain".

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
9.1.23  sandy-2021492  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.20    2 years ago
That's seriously ignorant stuff some Christians have believed to justify their own evil.

Couldn't be.  Faith is a gift, remember?

 
 
 
Pedro
9.1.24  Pedro  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.19    2 years ago

"Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; the one who also had leaned back on His chest at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray You?” John 21:20

I find I am often misquoted in the Bible and beyond.

 
 
 
Freefaller
9.1.25  Freefaller  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.1.21    2 years ago

If we're thinking of the same person the last weirdness I saw from him was that disease was the result of Earths sins (whatever that means)

 
 
 
Phoenyx13
9.1.26  Phoenyx13  replied to  Freefaller @9.1.25    2 years ago
If we're thinking of the same person the last weirdness I saw from him was that disease was the result of Earths sins (whatever that means)

yes, somehow the "Earth" had sinned and we got diseases as a result, but he never answered my question on how a planet (non-sentient as far as we know) could sin.

 
 
 
Gordy327
9.1.27  Gordy327  replied to  sandy-2021492 @9.1.21    2 years ago
I was told on the Vine that that's how diseases were introduced to humanity - we originally had "perfect" DNA,

I remember hearing that too. I couldn't believe (no pun intended) that someone would actually believe that nonsense.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
9.1.28  sandy-2021492  replied to  Freefaller @9.1.25    2 years ago

This was a woman, but yeah, I believe the person you're probably thinking of said something similar.

 
 
 
cjcold
9.1.29  cjcold  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.3    2 years ago

Adam and Eve were both created without genitals. Don't even get me started on where their kids and grandkids came from.

 
 
 
Explorerdog
9.1.30  Explorerdog  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.3    2 years ago

Plug and play option.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.31  Trout Giggles  replied to  cjcold @9.1.29    2 years ago

Ok....stop.

God cursed Eve and said she would bring forth children in pain and sorrow (or something like that).

He must have crafted genitals after they were thrown out of the Garden of Evil, otherwise, Eve wouldn't have suffered in childbirth, correct?

So many questions.....

 
 
 
Skrekk
9.1.32  Skrekk  replied to  Trout Giggles @9.1.31    2 years ago

I still find the concept of sex with one's own transgender clone a bit disturbing, even if it meant one only lost a rib rather than a critical part of the body like a foreskin or something.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
9.1.33  Trout Giggles  replied to  katrix @9.1.14    2 years ago

Anatomy is disgusting?

Maybe it's because some folks think the umbilicus (belly button) is something else?

 
 
 
Freefaller
9.1.34  Freefaller  replied to  Phoenyx13 @9.1.26    2 years ago

Lol I know, but generally he doesn't answer a lot of questions so no surprise.

 
 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
9.1.35  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @9.1.3    2 years ago

I like this part of the story, it comes BEFORE the creation of Adam.

27
So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis+1&version=NIV

Oooops.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
10  Perrie Halpern R.A.    2 years ago

OK guys this original sin thing, you do realize is specific to Christianity?

Jews do not believe in original sin. They believe that people are born sinless. 

Now what? Do you go back to the bible and rethink things?

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.1  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10    2 years ago
Now what? Do you go back to the bible and rethink things?

Please!!   If there is a God I am convinced that genuine, serious critical analysis of the Bible will reveal that God is definitely not described therein.   The God as described by the Bible is a logical contradiction and thus logically does not exist.   IMO it would be better to believe in a God who is entirely unknown (and likely unknowable) than to worship (and abide by the rules of) the invention of ancient men with pens.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
10.1.1  Release The Kraken  replied to  TᵢG @10.1    2 years ago
IMO it would be better to believe that a God exists who is entirely unknown (and likely unknowable) than to literally worship the invention of ancient men with pens.

Interesting.

 
 
 
TᵢG
10.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Release The Kraken @10.1.1    2 years ago

Boo!.   Bad fish changes TiG quote to make joke.    thumbs down

Wink

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
10.1.3  Release The Kraken  replied to  TᵢG