Never bet against God
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A Veterans Day tribute
My son's not a six-footer anymore. After too many parachute jumps with the 75th Ranger Regiment, medics told him his skeleton has compressed by a half inch, and that he's not getting it back. It probably didn't do his skeleton (or brain stem) any good to get blasted off a ladder by an improvised bomb, either. Even the routine and repetitive discharge of Army weaponry at the firing range can result in cumulative concussions that complicate questions of free will and moral accountability.
The burdens of defending our freedoms and our country's strategic interests have never been equally or fairly distributed. But he came home reasonably intact and upright, and is having a great life now as an entrepreneur, inventor, husband and fierce soccer dad on the grassy battlefields of California.
His cousin Jake wasn't as fortunate. Jake's mom and dad got his body back from Syria in May. I don't know much about how he died, but thanks to a remarkably meaty, substantial funeral – and thanks to long talks with his comrades at the wake – I know how he lived.
Not that Jacob Klipsch was ever a stranger to me. I remember him as a freakishly intelligent child. He talked with smart adults all day and I'm not sure he ever learned baby talk. He was so big and so articulate that most people assumed he was much older.
We got back in touch after the invention of email chat rooms. His was a restless intellect. He had not paused from reading broadly and thinking deeply. It was never a superficial conversation with Jacob.
He was at least agnostic, maybe an atheist then. Not a sneering, dismissive secular humanist like I was at that age, but rather a sincerely unconvinced pagan. He wasn't going to pretend he believed, if he didn't.
He knew of ancient "god-slaughter" cults with suspicious similarities to Christianity, and was conversant in the Gnostic claims of Roman hanky-panky in the selection of the biblical canon. I thought he was mistaken, but too smart and inquisitive to stay wrong. He was young, and had plenty of time to sort it all out.
But he was dead by age 36. I felt some panic when I heard he had died, and guilt. Throughout his lengthy funeral, I thought that despite all his virtues and selfless deeds, I'd have to bet he is probably roasting in Hell now, and from now on. We had let the clock run out on Jacob.
But it's not our clock.
The final speaker at the funeral mentioned in passing that Jake tried to take communion last Christmas at an ancient Syrian church near the front lines. Anybody sitting behind me at the funeral may have been startled to see my head snap up sharply. It was the only thing I heard all morning that actually matters anymore.
He wasn't able to get to the church last Christmas, but that's not the point. Jacob wouldn't have just gone through the motions. He wouldn't even consider taking communion unless he was a believer. I'm sure of that. Glory!
I learned later that he had told his dad that he was operating in "Yahweh's stomping grounds." The contested Syrian territory includes Chaldean villages that still speak Aramaic, the native tongue of Jesus. They trace their lineage to Aram, son of Shem, who was on the ark with his father, Noah. It's from Shem that we get the term Semite. Aram's brother Arphaxad is the ancestor of Abraham.
Of course it's ALL Yahweh's stomping grounds, including the next gazillion galaxies past ours, but I get Jake's point: Yahweh had worked many judgments and wonders in Syria, according to the Bible. And He wasn't done yet.
Maybe Jacob was called to Syria, not just to fight for the freedom and human dignity of complete strangers (which God could have accomplished much more efficiently), but for an intimate and unmistakable encounter with Christ, who knows a thing or two about unequally, unfairly distributed burdens. Death was in the offing, but not annihilation. I believe Jacob received something more than a mechanical, algebraic cancellation of sin; he entered the Savior's lavish hospitality.
I remember the period just before Jacob sought communion with Christ. It was, for me, a time of unusual spiritual dryness. Now, I like to think of it as a time when the Shepherd left the 99 to seek the lost lamb, the hard-headed one, because He alone grasped how precious that lamb is in the sight of the Father.
Never bet against God.
Bart Stinson resides in Evansville, Indiana, and is a columnist for The Press-Dispatch, a community newspaper in Petersburg, Indiana.
Tags
Who is online
238 visitors
“I learned later that he had told his dad that he was operating in "Yahweh's stomping grounds." The contested Syrian territory includes Chaldean villages that still speak Aramaic, the native tongue of Jesus. They trace their lineage to Aram, son of Shem, who was on the ark with his father, Noah. It's from Shem that we get the term Semite. Aram's brother Arphaxad is the ancestor of Abraham.
Of course it's ALL Yahweh's stomping grounds, including the next gazillion galaxies past ours, but I get Jake's point: Yahweh had worked many judgments and wonders in Syria, according to the Bible. And He wasn't done yet.”
The same can be said about betting against harry Potter, zombies or the Headless Horseman. None of them exist so your emotional claims are irrelevant.
[deleted]
So many people who 'godspeak' really need to keep it to themselves. Especially the ones who consider Trump the second coming. No thanks.
Yahweh was never in Syria.
But His Son was and they created it, along with all the rest of the Universe.
We all wait, bated breath, for your proof.
It's a shame that you cannot prove that wild claim.
Dangerous.
But it's not surprising either. It seems rather typical.
The seed is a Veterans Day tribute editorial by a man to his lost in the line of duty relative and to his living son who also served. Nothing more, nothing less.
Some people seem to have a need to even go out of their way to be offended. (I am not talking about you)
And yet you make a baseless claim which, unsurprisingly, you can't back up and now try to dodge when challenged on it! Nothing more, nothing less indeed.
Indeed they do on both counts. Notice how they can’t even comment on that it’s Veterans Day and it was a tribute to them. It’s the progressive way to always have a grievance and something to complain about.
I notice how you constantly whine about progressives, secularists, ect along with baseless asinine claims. Take a long look in a mirror when you complain about others complaining.
I would comment on it, but it's raining. I don't want to get my hair wet, and my bone spurs are hurting.
You are more upset that the author as he states was once a sneering dismissive secular humanist like so many are and then he converted from that to the good man he is now.
You presume too much.
Your rather insulting inference aside, What the individual in questions decided to do is irrelevant. You also didn't address anything in my post. Seems more like another deflection and non-sequitur.
What a shame that people actually believe that a supreme entity would ' roast ' a person in 'Hell' simply for not believing in the entity.
Ancient words and ancient scare tactics survive even to 2018 and have an effect in a society replete with information.
The everlasting flames of hell is an unfortunate carry over from Catholicism in the dark ages and fire and brimstone Protestants who borrowed that theology in the 19th century. The effects of hell are permanent for those lost, the living punishment is not. After all the earth is recreated as it once was in eden before sin upon the ashes of everything and everyone consumed by it. It is the permanent separation of unrepentant sinners from God.
And how is it that you know the specific intent of the grandest possible entity? Read it in an ancient book that preceded the 'unfortunate carry over' nonsense (using your words)?
By what intellectual method do you decide to dismiss ancient words of some religious people and believe with all your heart ancient words of other religious people?
“Death was in the offing, but not annihilation. I believe Jacob received something more than a mechanical, algebraic cancellation of sin; he entered the Savior's lavish hospitality.
I remember the period just before Jacob sought communion with Christ. It was, for me, a time of unusual spiritual dryness. Now, I like to think of it as a time when the Shepherd left the 99 to seek the lost lamb, the hard-headed one, because He alone grasped how precious that lamb is in the sight of the Father.”
Are people who were born before Jesus is claimed to have existed also sent to Hell? What happens to people who never heard of Jesus, such as native Americans or 2nd century Chinese ? I'd rather be reincarnated as a squirrel in the Hindu tradition than to spend eternity in Heaven with religious loons.
Is that supposed to be an answer to my questions?
When you figure out that question, send me a private note because I am really curious how his response is related to your original question.
I doubt private notes will still exist when Hell is frozen over.
My answer was in keeping with getting the seed back on its Veterans Day tribute.
A wonderful and fitting tribute to all who served in the military of our exceptional America.
This I will agree with.
Why do you believe that all service members are Christians?
While the vast majority are, there are also followers of the other Abrahamic religions in the US military as well.
There are many more religions and lack of religious belief among the service members. The VA acknowledges that difference because they offer a variety of headstone icons. There are multiple crosses available for the various Christian sects.
What peculiar writing from the author:
but thanks to a remarkably meaty, substantial funeral What ?!?
I remember him as a freakishly intelligent child Wait, intelligence is freakish ?!?
He was at least agnostic, maybe an atheist then. Not a sneering, dismissive secular humanist like I was at that age, but rather a sincerely unconvinced pagan. "agnostic" and "atheist" are not interchangeable with "pagan"
I'd have to bet he is probably roasting in Hell now, and from now on. Nice.
I believe Jacob received something more than a mechanical, algebraic cancellation of sin; he entered the Savior's lavish hospitality. Again, What ?!?
Way to attack a moving tribute to a military member who died in the line of duty by a grieving relative who found a way to be uplifted despite the circumstances. [deleted]
Removed for context [SP]
Removed for context [SP]
Removed for context [SP]
[deleted]
[deleted]
You stated your opinion.
And Pat stated hers.
Look HA, your seed tacitly asserts (by the author) that all who do not believe in the author's God will 'roast' in 'Hell'.
So imagine a USA soldier KIA who happens to be a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu or an atheist (etc.). The tribute is to Christians to the exclusion of all others.
What would you say to the parents, widow, siblings, children of a soldier who did not believe in the Christian God?
The seed is offensive. Your criticism of Pat is uncalled for.
He expressed concern for his relative and his eternal salvation. He never expressed a blanket statement about all or everyone. He expressed his beliefs in a tribute to a fallen soldier and no one who didn’t like the title of the article was compelled to open and read it so I categorically deny your claim as to the fine seed.
Do you understand what the phrase 'tacitly asserts' means? In the seed the author worries about his nephew's beliefs. The consequence of wrong belief, per the author, about his nephew:
Either the roasting in Hell only applies to his nephew or it applies to all who did not 'properly' believe in the 'correct' God. I think we all know that this concept of eternal damnation is commonly held to apply to all with 'improper' beliefs. You personally have made the eternal damnation declaration even on this site.
I would like to see it but it's been deleted.
The criticism is still there @5.1
This is a example of offensive and inappropriate content IMO...
It should be allowed, IMO. But once HA posts it, he gets to take his lumps regarding it. He's not the only one who gets to speak his mind.
[deleted]
That sweeping generalization is too funny.
It is not funny but it is 100% accurate. And that you find it funny is proof of that comments accuracy.
Only in your mind.
I find it funny because it's an absurd statement, with a hint of paranoia. It's borderline delusional. And clearly I am not the only one here who saw it as a sweeping generalization too. So it looks as if my assessment of your post is 100% accurate. Yours, not so much, as in not at all. Too bad!
I’m sure all of your atheist friends here did too. No surprise there.
They do tend to be rational and logical minded. That's not surprising in the least. but since you're the one with the deleted post, for a sweeping generalization no less, my previous statement stands.
The statement was deleted because it was 100% accurate in every way and hit some too close to home thus it was censored. I make no apologies for what I said and literally believe and know it to be true.
I'm sure you do. Of course, belief seems the best you can muster. Certainly nothing resembling anything factual or true in reality. It still doesn't mean you're right or "accurate." It just affirms what I already said.
All content from a Christian perspective is offensive to many here. Even a moving tribute on Veterans Day weekend to a fallen soldier who died in the line of duty by one of that soldiers own relatives.
A tribute that contains condemnation of those who don't buy into the author's beliefs.
For some here their intolerance and hatre is all consuming and at the forefront of their being. They are unable to accept anything but their own views while condemning others.
Irony.
Very much so. The seed tacitly asserts that all non-Christians will roast in Hell. Those who object to such a broad brush condemnation are deemed 'intolerant' and 'hateful'.
And to top it off the noted irony - "unable to accept anything but their own views ".
Good grief.
Your post is exactly right. Well said and thanks for supporting tolerance of a diversity of opinion here.
Condemnation of non-Christians is not a tribute. You talk about offensive? Well such a "tribute" is offensive!
It is factually not true that he condemns anyone at all in his opinion piece. He simply expressed a fear for the eternal well being of a fallen family member. Nothing more need be read into that part of the article.
The title of your article is: Never Bet Against God. So it is not possible to spin this as merely a fallen family member story.
The seed asserts the belief that a non-Christian -no matter how good the person- would roast in Hell. Never Bet Against God = believe in the Christian God or else.
Non-Christians are quite in their rights to criticize this piece.
If you really want to offer a piece about a fallen soldier then maybe pick one whose title is about the soldier rather than a soldier who might have bet 'against' God and went from the battlefield straight to Hell to roast for eternity.
It's about a "Christian perspective," which is essentially saying that any non-Christian is doomed to hell, regardless if an individual is the focus or not. That "perspective" is saying a non-Christian position (or religion) is by default wrong. Do you not see how that can be offensive?
He was writing about never betting against God to heal a sinners heart, even that of a one time hardened atheist to lead him to salvation before it was too late for him. It was all about God in one life, the life that he was paying tribute to along with the God who saved him and brought peace to all of their lives. That is the bottom line here.
A bowel moving tribute at best.
Have fun examining the results of your movement.
Why would you even care? You deny God exists and call our real beliefs a myth. So, even if it did say all non Christians are going to hell which it did not, why would you care about what in your mind is such a myth having nothing to do with you or your like minded?
Why should anyone think that you believe in any god when you refuse to discuss exactly what your religious beliefs are?
Has anyone ever prevented or attempted to prevent you from exercising your religious rights as defined by the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution? You willfully chose to take part in a discussion site and it is expected that the subject of religion will be part of that action, or do you think that you have the right for your religious beliefs not to be the subject of critical review?
and conversely it seems that it isn't enough for believers to just believe - they need everyone else to believe as they do too, which is why they more interested in trying to legislate their beliefs into secular law (ie. legal discrimination) and constantly condemning everyone to Hell if they don't lockstep with their beliefs.
Tolerance isn't their strong suit.
actually, as you can read in my statement [ deleted- ] you weren't specifically mentioned whatsoever in it .
perhaps my post was best directed as a reply to yours since your statement likes to categorize all " non believers " as completely intolerant to " believers " - my statement is just as true as yours.
congratulations - that means you aren't LGBT who have had to fear that until the SCOTUS decision for same sex marriage , or just LGBT in general who have to deal with people like this :
but hey, why should you worry about laws like this being proposed since you it won't alter your life in any significant way, right ? who cares, right ? (obviously, that religious lawyer doesn't hold tolerance as his strong suit... yet your post states that it's the "non believers" who aren't tolerant... how odd...)
good for you - why should you care, right ?
*sigh*
please try reading the post again ... carefully ... and you'll understand what the info in that post was for .. i can't do everything for you .
what's too bad is the way your post was stated - try clearly communicating next time . If you are upset a a select few non believers - then frame it as such .
seems like you do since you took the time to make that post
i could care less what you do or don't believe .
nope, you just get up on your soapbox to yell at others who don't believe the religious community is a wonderful thing - as evidenced in that post .
next ?
you seem to be under the impression that it's only non believers that pull those stunts as evidenced by your post - nothing could be further from the truth, rest assured since i gave you examples.
[deleted]
same goes for you and your post.
you chastised for non belief and act as if every non believer chastises believers for their beliefs - nothing could be further from the truth, rest assured.
seems like great advice for you to take
thanks
it's appreciated since our last discussion - you were determined to have the last word and i gave it to you 
do you have any other inane comments for the discussion ?
If you weren't discussing religion, in this reply to Heartland about religious belief, then what exactly were you referring to?
If your reference to belief is not referring to religious belief then what exactly are you and Heartland talking about?
Stop trying to be obtuse.
What difference does that make?
At least until you prove there's a god.
It's implied.
It's the (somewhat insulting) sanctimonious arrogance being displayed.
Such paranoid delusions.
Such irony!
Why would I be asking what your religious beliefs are if I already knew what they were? I am asking you what they are obviously because I do not know what they are. I know that you are a theist because you reference believing in a god but that idea also applies equally to Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians, among many other religions. I am assuming that you are likely a member of a Protestant Christian sect because of the language that you use but that hunch may be wrong, so you might be Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic.
How am I moving the goalposts?
Texan was exactly right. He stated it perfectly.
That doesn't refute anything I said.
not even a little!
when people use the term "They" it infers everyone else across the room not to include the person saying it which would then naturally include the person saying it as on the opposite side.
When you state, "They" don't believe it infers you do believe, and when you state "They" don't want anyone else to believe, you are saying you do want people to believe.
So you basically told everyone in that one statement that you are a believer in God and you want to spread that belief to everyone else in the world.
The English language really isn't that hard.
In other words, I was spot on then.
Nice sweeping generalization. But I don't sugar coat things just to spare someone's feelings.
That's funny, considering you just made a sweeping generalization about those without god/religion, which sounds suspiciously like belittling.
I'm just fine, thanks.
If you do not want people to assume things about you then maybe writing in a more clear and concise manner in the future would prevent it. You could have wrote.
I understand there are people in the world that do not believe in the different religious entities of the word and would like to prevent others from sharing their beliefs in the matter, but no matter how people feel about the situation, everyone should be able to share their own beliefs without persecution from others whom may want to silence them.
In comment above i captured the true intent of your argument yet did not imply any leanings of my own and did not come off as attacking any particular group or individual. Just trying to help.
just have to shake my head in disbelief. Enjoy your day.
How can I possibly google what your religious beliefs are? Why are you being so evasive?
Well said. About the only way to address secular progressives.
I've seen you disrespect others' non-belief. That's only one of the numerous reasons we don't get along
meh
It's out there now and you responded. That's all that matters
I never said you try to recruit them but you sure get testy when someone questions the mere existence of God. You proved that right here in this seed
I wonder why you get so pissed off when someone challenges or questions the existence of god.
What's wrong with wanting proof? Especially for an outrageous claim or belief?
I said you seem to get pissed off whenever someone questions/challenges god's existence.
Again I ask: what is wrong with asking for proof when making an outrageous claim?
Belief does not exempt someone from scrutiny or ridicule. Especially if said belief is particularly far out there. But people can believe whatever they want.
So you get pissed when someone is condescending, and yet here you are with a condescending remark.
You ask way too much, it seems.
Why are you so being evasive about your religious beliefs? What Christian sect do you belong to? I would not tell you to google my religious beliefs unless I told you what they were, so why are you telling me to google what you believe?
Why should we tell you what particular denomination we might belong to?
Is there a problem that you are ashamed of what sect you are a member of?
Because different sects have different beliefs. Catholics are drastically different from Baptists or Mennonites.
Because it give us insight to your beliefs and why you are so dogmatic about them
No surprise you can't answer a simple question or address points made.
It it would just give them another angle of attack so that they could mock specific points of our belief and subject a single or a couple of denominations to a withering onslaught of hate and intolerance instead of it being directed upon all of us in general as a Christian collective.
Well said. Sometimes silence in the face of intolerance and hate is for the best.
Exactly. I totally ignore it every time any of them say something to the effect of “prove it”. I just ignore it and go on with the expression of my opinion or belief. They swarm belief seeds of all kinds. It’s time to ignore the intolerance and hate and express what we believe to appeal to the neutral and the ones who are unaware as if the atheists aren’t here.
Nothing wrong with that at all but most of the time you assert that your opinions and beliefs are factual and settled. You do that all the time. We all need to remember the difference between fact and opinion.
Not sure I get why some people think atheists hate God. Is it the obvious critique of certain gods such as Yahweh? When people talk of Yahweh in negative terms that is an assessment of a biblical character. Much like assessing Voldemort or Darth Vader.
If atheists actually believed that human beings have knowledge of the grandest possible entity - the creator of everything - do you think atheists would just hate the creator?? For what reason?
The 'hatred' that you think exists is simply critique based on how a particular god is defined. It is a logical critique of a character in a book.
Off target again.
Nobody (or hardly anybody) hates believers just for believing. It's when they either try to force those beliefs on others, such as in public schools, or use those beliefs to justify harm done to others, that we have a problem. Religion has been used to justify some pretty nasty stuff - slavery, war, genocide, mistreatment of women and children. Any time religion is used to support injustice, moral people will and should speak out.
Maybe so but a lot of people will attack the hell out of what they either dont want to understand, don't care to understand or cant accept others at least think they do understand.
That goes for more than just religions.
Isn't that like a form of hate ? It seems both can produce the same responses and actions.
.........
I'll certainly go along with the shoving religion down your throat agner thing though. I even have a sign on my front door.If you dont have an appointment dont ring the damn bell. If not I have people coming here all the time wanting to do my yard work, sell me their solar, or invite me to their nearby church. My dogs go nuts for no reason when they come by here so now they at least just leave their literature on walk away.
I kinda pity the first one that doesn't....lol That sign is up for a reason. Go ahead.. Ring the bell at your own risk...lol
If they cant respect my probertymy sign or my wishes.. well..... Then they probably shouldn't expect a real respectful response back.
Cause, I may answer the door in my underwear scratching my ass. LOL
"Hello, come on in !"
lol
Arguing the validity of a belief is not the same as hate, no.
Those of us who argue that there is no evidence to support the existence of God (or gods) actually DO understand the belief in God. Many of us were raised as Christians, and are more informed about scripture than many who still believe.
When someone decides it's their place to represent their god, and tell the rest of us that we can't let gays marry, or their god will surely send down his wrath in the form of hurricanes, well, they'd better have pretty good evidence for their god. They never seem to, but they always seem to "know" what he wants, and it always seems to line up with what they want.
Do you really think that atheists (especially here on NT) hate religious people?
Not from my perspective.
Debate and critical analysis does not require emotions such as hatred. Ken Ham, for example, is actively trying to dumb down the next generation with his YEC beliefs. I personally do not hate the man, but my position is that he is doing far more harm than good and I am openly critical of his efforts. When I think of hatred towards a human being I think of people like Stalin or murdering pedophiles.
or we can chose just not to believe them as I do. I really dont care what They believe. or much of what they say. I KNOW what I believe.
right or wrong.
PS: last I knew gay people can marry now, and do.
but they always seem to "know" what he wants, and it always seems to line up with what they want.
So, don't believe that either, again, I dont.
Now if anyone tries to shove their beliefs down my throat and I say NO Thank you, IF they persist, I have no problem using the feet GOD gave me ta walk away.
LOL
a lot of people will attack the hell out of what they either dont want to understand, don't care to understand or cant accept others at least think they do understand.
That doesn't sound like it includes you or others like you. Hopefully including me, most of the time. I also try to stay objective, logical, reasonable, realistic and respectful. After all it is another human I'm conferning with.
Usually ....lol
Okay, but recognize that being derisive towards people who believe in a god is not the same as hating religious people.
Frankly, I would prefer to see civil, logical debates. But that is so rare. Typically in religious debates the religious side (sorry, it is true) starts getting emotional and the quality of the debate quickly degrades into meta.
Religious debate (quality debate) is rare, but the questions remain. Thus questions come out in comments - mostly as challenges. Questions such as: how is it possible in 2018 for knowledgeable people -given modern access to information- to believe the words of ancient men are actually the divine words of a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, loving creator of everything?
I've seen plenty of believers say gays shouldn't marry because their religion forbids it, and claim that God made marriage. And I've seen an NTer commenting in support of disasters and atrocities being healed by God's forgiveness.
There is nothing like someone claiming 'you will get what you deserve on judgment day'. Nothing more wonderful than gleefully considering an eternity of the worst possible torture for a fellow human being. And considering it 'appropriate'.
A fairly recent development, and made in opposition to those who decided to speak for a god they can't prove exists. People who fought tooth and nail to deny them that right, and who would take it away today, if they could.
Some people don't have the privilege of ignoring religious oppression.
Not even close, it is distinguishing people in civil society from third world people / deprived people who do not even have a decent education.
By the way, I considered qualifying that because others take the very same tact that you just did - looking for ways to be personally insulted. Reading waaaaay too much into individual words.
People who do not have knowledge of evolution, and other findings of science have no basis to compare the explanations from the Bible. But knowledgeable people do. I understand why ancient men believed in their gods. The religions were the best possible explanation available. That is not true today - by a long shot.
I'd say hate can be seen in many forms including verbally attacking non believes or believers validity of their personal beliefs.
I've seen and heard some pretty wicked stuff fly from both sides.
Religion is like politics, some peoples own self image is centered in their beliefs and anything that challenges those beliefs challenges them at their core.
Emotions fly and words can become "hateful" again, form both believers and non believes. I think it stems from fear. Fear they just might somehow be ...wrong. again, Both sides.
Funny thing is, IMO: NO human alive Knows for sure.
How so? TiG has repeatedly acknowledged that there may be a god.
I guess some are determined to see hate, whether it's there or not.
Their fear of being wrong does not equate to hate from the other side.
Totally agree.
Nobody knows if there is a creator entity. And if nobody knows if a creator exists (or not) then how is it possible that so many people claim certain knowledge not only that God exists but have stories, personality, expectations, and attributes such as omniscience, omnipotence, etc.?
It would be so much better, IMO, if people followed what we know about God - nothing - and simply admit that everything about God is our own presumption. So, given that, the intellectually honest and rational view (IMO) is this:
There might be a sentient creator. If there is such an entity, we know nothing about it and we have no idea what it expects of us, if anything.
I understand that not everyone feels comfortable in walking away as I do, But logical, responsible, respectful confrontation IMO: Always makes better inroads than attacking or shit like rapid fire questioning or not even trying to understand others perspective of an issue.
Gays didn't get the right to marry because of hate, they got it because it was the right and loving thing to do and finally enough people saw that and voted for it.
PS: The same is true for MMJ.
Whose question?
TiG is a guy.
Did you read my response @6.2.98? I explained precisely why I put in 'knowledgeable'.
Do you recognize the degree to which you have presumed bad intent?
He thinks I am a woman. (I figured the Rook was a masculine chess piece.)
Maybe not.
It's not a matter of comfort. It's a matter of being lucky enough not to be one of the oppressed.
As a straight (I assume), white man, you have been denied few rights on the basis of religion. Others are not so lucky.
No, they got it nationwide because SCOTUS reasoned there was no justification for denying it. At the time of the decision, many states would have voted overwhelmingly to deny gays the right to marry.
Danke.
So back to my point. Atheists wonder about things like that. For example, I have offered as examples brilliant scientists who are Christian such as Dr. Francis Collins. This is a leader in the field of genetics - a highly respected MD and scientist and thus without question one of the most knowledgeable persons on the planet.
Yet he believes the Bible is divine. He has yet to explain this, by the way, (at least publicly) so I really have no idea how this is possible.
I cannot ask him, but I can certainly ask questions of others. So I do. And I ask challenging questions. And I debate.
Well then this is a very good example of why religious debates fail and typically on the religious side. You presumed ill intent. I explained exactly what I meant. You think I am lying to you and reject my explanation and stand by your original presumption.
Now how can two people actually engage in intellectual discourse with that going on?
Fear, can lead to fight or flight, fighting can certainly turn to hate.
Wars aren't fought out of love. They may times are fought out of fear though. Yes fear can lead to hate.
Well, it depends on the issue, doesn't it? When it foments hate against groups that aren't "right with God", that's a problem. It's scapegoating, and scapegoating historically has had some disastrous results.
My point is that if any challenge to one's beliefs is "hate" well, I guess there's a lot of "hate", because we've now broadened the definition of "hate" as to include almost everything but complete acquiescence. I think we ought not to defend misinterpreting challenge as "hate".
because it was the right and loving thing to do and finally enough people saw that.
Angry confrontation usually gains little ground. Logical debate can change minds and reality.
Challenging anyone usually take a bit of tactfulness, How many people take the time and/or effort to approach that way ? Few !
Thats why so few are successful and many times it ends up well... hateful.
I'm not talking about going to hell.
I'm talking about people like Kevin Swanson, Pat Robertson and folks like them, who blame gays, Girl Scouts, and people who don't like Trump for natural disasters and the "moral decline" of the nation and world. They blame actual living people for actual bad things happening in the here and now, not in the afterlife. That's dangerous. We've seen it before - Jews might be the most notable victims of scapegoating, but it's happened to other groups, as well. It can and has led to death and destruction. It still does, as in Squirrel Hill.
And all justified by an insistence on adherence to a god for whose existence no evidence has been produced.
Not IMO. That was primarily a top-down movement.
It's easy to condemn angry confrontation, when one's own rights aren't in question.
That would be boring, wouldn't it? These are discussion boards. Why not discuss?
But also for the reasons I've stated above - the religious beliefs of the majority have affected the lives of the minority, and many in the majority, being in a position of comfort, don't see any reason why it shouldn't just go on that way.
Now we enter the slimy meta stage.
I explained why I put in 'knowledgeable' - to distinguish those with knowledge from those who do not have modern knowledge. It is easy to see how those who have little or no modern knowledge (such as what we have given the web) would accept biblical explanations for the mysteries of life. It is NOT easy to see how people can, for example, deny evolution.
You read my explanation of intent (which I gave immediately to correct your misunderstanding) . You rejected my statement of intent and deemed your original (incorrect) presumption of ill intent to be the correct interpretation. You know my intent better than I do? I am the only person on the planet who knows my intent. When you reject my statement of intent and declare that my intent was not what I stated, you are ipso facto claiming I am lying.
See?
Now note that we are now deep into the 'meta' portion of the show. This is exactly what I was describing. See how this works? There is no useful dialogue going on.
I didn't.
As a person who has depended on marijuana to help keep me from drinking which already killed my entire immediate family, yeah I have my stories of oppression. Try getting a good job when ya can't pass a simple piss test most of your life. Religion played a part in keeping marijuana illegal all this time as well. I still treat religious people with respect.
Don't believe in GOD as they do but don't hate them for their believes or even from what they have done to help keep me from legally enjoying my drug of choice.
What "rights" have you been kept from that you believe religion is behind if I may ask ?
And I very seldom ask anyone anything, this just sparked my interest. I cant think of ayones rights religion alone is blocking. Maybe I'm missing some stuff.
Debate / discussion is all about the dialectic. The idea is to have opposing sides challenge each other. The objective is not to change the other person's mind - that never happens. It is to generate new perspectives for the readers and to give the debaters something to ponder after-the-fact.
Don't feel bad, some think I am a man. My 'peace and love' isn't the warm fuzzy I thought.
You may very well be correct, however that sounds like a personal problem with that individual. I know people that seem to have one Hell of a time accepting the reality around them, Unfortunately for them their lives reflect it and they never realize why.
( Well, honestly, I do not feel bad. 'TiG' does not really give much gender info. )
And neither do I.
Legally? None. But there has always been a bias against women that, for many, originates in religion. I didn't notice it much growing up, until high school, when the differences in the treatment of girls' sports teams versus boys' sports teams was blatant. For years, I attended church with my mom, and was told that abuse and adultery were not an adequate reason for a woman to seek a divorce. In dental school, there were residents who told female students they were only there to get their "Mrs." degree. And I've had patients tell me they weren't comfortable with a female dentist (although why they called one with an obviously feminine first name is beyond me).
Many "enlightened" men I know still consider themselves to be the final decision-maker in their marriages, just because they're male. My brother is one.
My ex was another. He wasn't that way when we married, but one day he decided that "there can only be one leader here". I nominated myself. He didn't think that was nearly as funny as I did
I would say that nobody has proof of God (existing or not). We do not even have evidence much less proof.
See what I wrote @6.2.103
I'm a spiritual person who dislikes organized religions. Often religions try to force their limited version of 'the truth' on the rest of us. They don't know any more than I do, literally. I'm offended by current religious propensity to follow the money and power, using faith to manipulate the flocks. The talk is cheap and the actions are often anything but pure. It rankles me to be told I have to adhere to another's belief system. The last straw is watching same people supporting Trump. Makes a mockery of those supposed values. And unfortunately, they do intrude on our lives.
I'm sorry you have had some tough times and sounds like some really bad advice and I'm glad you have grown past that. Sometimes there isn't much ta say so sometimes I just say. " Sometimes life well, It just sucks !"
I hope you have realized some of what you were told is old thinking.
Many modern men understand and actually appreciate a duel ownership, leadership relationship/marriage these days.
but one day he decided that "there can only be one leader here". I nominated myself. He didn't think that was nearly as funny as I did
LOL.. I think It's petty darn funny and a damn good come back.
My life hasn't been that tough, on the whole. But there are challenges that come with being a woman that men just don't experience, and many of those challenges are there due to religion.
Yes, I realize that those are old ways of thinking. But it's not like I can completely avoid the effects of those old ways of thinking on my life. I live in a world where religion has held sway for millennia.
His jaw dropped, and he started stuttering. I think the combination of being pissed off at me for being a smartass, and the realization that he was on thin ice, overwhelmed his ability to speak.
Yep you're correct as a man these are things there that I cant identify with, I can have empathy though and do.
When I was married I think we had a pretty equal leadership relationship but we were both really young and about the same age so that probably helped as well.
LOL Neither one of us knew what the Hell we were doing in life.... So we relied on each other.
Equally !
lol
????
I'd say you were standing up for yourself. Good for you ,I learned to do that long ago. (I'm a little guy always have been.) I ether stood up for myself or got the shit beat outta me. I stood up !
and the realization that he was on thin ice, overwhelmed his ability to speak.
Reality has that effect on some.
LOL
It was my tone. I'm afraid it was a bit derisive. There may have been some laughter on my part. Probably no more than he deserved, though.
When said religions and politicians force their dogma into politics and laws, it does impact everyone, adults and children. The values can be held and followed however everybody wants, the problems come when they do force things on the masses. And they are right now trying to pass laws that usurp others personal rights. That's a problem for everyone. It is worse coming from the same people who don't have a problem with what Trump says and does, don't want those folks having a say in what rights can be infringed.
i would say in general - same sex marriage ( denying same sex couples the secular legal right of Marriage until recently )
plus, some reading to see how religious laws or religious based laws affect many people in the United States :
Whatever you say. I'll just consider it intellectual cowardice.
[Deleted] an op ed piece paying tribute to soldiers on Veterans Day weekend.
I wasn't aware there was a time limit on when someone can comment, or in what types of articles certain comments were allowed. But your transparently laughable ad hom attach is duly noted.
The article never said what was being implied about it. That’s the bottom line. I stand by it in its entirety.
Good point. You are of course right in every way. For a more peaceful time reading check out my seed on the existence of angels in the religion section here. It was quite uplifting for those of us who are believers.
This seed has been up long enough and I’m going to be away for a bit so I’m locking the seed, possibly for good.
I do just fine, thanks.
That means very little to me.
No loss there!
i would answer with researching blue laws in every state.
Most hunters in West Virginia can't hunt on Sunday. So - for those who like or need to hunt, and have weekday jobs, one of the two days they have available to put meat on the table is legally not open to them.
And last time I met a friend in WV to go tubing, we had to wait until after 1 if we wanted to buy beer to take along. Mostly, that's an inconvenience, but it affects sales for grocery and convenience stores, too.
guess it depends on how you define harm , North Dakota had problems a couple decades ago with their Blue Laws :
most laws affect car sales and alcohol (beer and/or liquor sales) on Sundays - Virginia and West Virginia also ban hunting . It's limiting your freedom to buy certain goods or hunt on Sundays - i guess that can be classified as harm
Yes, they can.
Depending on work schedules, weather, and family activities, Sunday may be some folks' only day to hunt, especially if they have to travel to get to their favorite hunting spot. My ex likes to hunt, but works Monday through Saturday, delivering mail. Sunday is his only day off.
Not necessarily good for the animals, either, at least not the population overall. Hunting culls the herd.
I’d like to take this opportunity here on this fine seed to say Happy Veterans Day as we honor vets in our life, family, and across the nation. May God Bless you all. Thank you to all veterans for your service to our country and for preserving our God given liberty and sacred rights.
On that we agree.
That free will thing really messes it all up.