Interventionist God or Non Interventionist God?

[Pavlos Maros]

Waterfall, Regarding medicine. Chansen cleared that up.

However there is one other point you and Bette are neglecting. Is that any one religious person has the propensity to do the most abhorrent things for the most inane, stupid, irrational, reason.
Religion is dependent on a belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgements that happen after we die. It has no reality check.
and as such cant be criticised, questioned, or corrected. Therefore it at any time can spin into extremes of absurdity, grotesque immorality, and denial of reality. The thing that sets it apart from all other ideologies, social networks, etc is its belief in the things I stated above I.E. invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgements that happen after we die. With that belief the capacity for religion to do harm is cranked up to an alarming level. Because they have no reality check.

 

[Waterfall]

Waterfall, Regarding medicine. Chansen cleared that up.

However there is one other point you and Bette are neglecting. Is that any one religious person has the propensity to do the most abhorrent things for the most inane, stupid, irrational, reason.

I could cite many many examples where this reasoning could also be applied to science or medicine.

 

[Waterfall]

Religion is dependent on a belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgements that happen after we die. It has no reality check.
and as such cant be criticised, questioned, or corrected.

Historically and currently, religion has always been criticized, questioned or corrected many times. (medicine, science...the same) Christianity isn't dependent on a belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, etc..... when understood correctly, it provides a message full of hope, love and compassion. Jesus is our reality check.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

I could cite many many examples where this reasoning could also be applied to science or medicine.

Ah but you couldn't because Science, Medicine can have a reality check because they are not a concept made up of invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgements that happen after we die.

Historically and currently, religion has always been criticized, questioned or corrected many times. (medicine, science...the same) Christianity isn't dependent on a belief in invisible beings, inaudible voices, etc..... when understood correctly, it provides a message full of hope, love and compassion. Jesus is our reality check.

I don't thing you realised what you just did there. Do you?
And you know Jesus is real because? An itinerant jewish rabbi may or may have not have existed, there is no proof whatsoever. Jesus is your reality check. Really!

 

[Luce NDs]

Yes, What good if any is always overshadowed by the fact that at any time it's adherents could kill if they believe it is right to or they believe that their god has told them to. Where?

"Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children. " Christopher Hitchens, God is not great.

ISIS, Al-Qaeda, 9/11, Human sacrifices, Spanish inquisition, Mary I burning Protestants, the holocaust, the crusades, honour killings, witch-hunts, stoning promiscuous women, thousands of wars and acts of terrorism, non-consensual sex with children and paedophilia, the rejection of science and reason etc etc etc.

My brother once said and felt he was right in saying it, was. "if it wasn't for my fear of god I could kill someone." I replied. "I have no fear of god and I couldn't kill or even contemplate killing anyone."

So from that any believer looking to excuse his own temper, sense of superiority, warmongering, bigotry, or planetary destruction can find validation in writings that claim to be authored by God. Being religious is becoming like an excuse to be inhuman and selfish. As said given the righteous reason/s any religious person would commit atrocities.A formula for what? I'm not after achieving anything. And as said in my last post you don't have to agree with me. So lets leave it at that.

Do white supremacists kill because of the power of blood increases the gamos ... as moot?

 

[chansen]

Of course religion depends on things unseen and unheard. When your "reality check" is a guy we don't know 100% existed, who is claimed to have been the son of God, on the back of no evidence and hilariois reasoning, you're not in a good spot to use him as a "reality check".

 

[Luce NDs]

Ah but you couldn't because Science, Medicine can have a reality check because they are not a concept made up of invisible beings, inaudible voices, intangible entities, undetectable forces, and events and judgements that happen after we die.
I don't thing you realised what you just did there. Do you?
And you know Jesus is real because? An itinerant jewish rabbi may or may have not have existed, there is no proof whatsoever. Jesus is your reality check. Really!

Jesus is real because it is like a stab in the dark ... thus the bulldogging of Spike ... terrorizing those not wishing to be further enlightened ... stone struck? Always look at stuff from the other side ... tis moot, hard for those well-set to get away from the old idea (IDi'M) as set by IEZus in or around 1603 ... completely redacted from 2000 years ago but still a golden ass that can't go anywhere ... now is there a darker side of that Don Qui? Something in the other hand that will oil the hans, jans and Yambs we're in?

 

[Luce NDs]

Of course religion depends on things unseen and unheard. When your "reality check" is a guy we don't know 100% existed, who is claimed to have been the son of God, on the back of no evidence and hilariois reasoning, you're not in a good spot to use him as a "reality check".

Does darkness exist if only for conflicting contrast?

Some say it is abstract or just not as it appears ... the Shadow ...

Dark scary things intrigue (curios-itty) some who attempt to unravel the tapestry of pleonastic consumption ... behind the word an dark pool organized in a line (with squiggles) ... all it takes is half a hart and 'ave a' sole to figure ... time for a trip to the fore Estra'L surroundings ... that delta of Venus ... an oracle of more to come ... as we don't know when enough is en-uff ... ah huff?

 

[paradox3]

Of course religion depends on things unseen and unheard. When your "reality check" is a guy we don't know 100% existed, who is claimed to have been the son of God, on the back of no evidence and hilariois reasoning, you're not in a good spot to use him as a "reality check".

Don't you get tired of this? Telling us we are hilarious and so on? Quite frankly, I have grown weary of the repetition (mine as well as yours).

Bidding you farewell until something new breaks in the Vosper case.

 

[Waterfall]

Don't you get tired of this? Telling us we are hilarious and so on? Quite frankly, I have grown weary of the repetition (mine as well as yours).

This.

 

[chansen]

Christianity is a source of humour. Also, because the book doesn't change, why would you expect the opposition to it to change? The problems with the book are as old as the book. As the nature of the beliefs change to suit modern morality and attempt to contort the bible to fit, the humour changes to note these extreme double-jointed stretches. But don't expect major changes in the arguments and mockery. Unless you manage to improve the book. But you can't. It's locked in its wtf-state.

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

Christianity is a source of humour. Also, because the book doesn't change, why would you expect the opposition to it to change? The problems with the book are as old as the book. As the nature of the beliefs change to suit modern morality and attempt to contort the bible to fit, the humour changes to note these extreme double-jointed stretches. But don't expect major changes in the arguments and mockery. Unless you manage to improve the book. But you can't. It's locked in its wtf-state.

Text books change because they are always wrong. Christians force the changes because they are often filled with lies, known lies, but they have no better evidence to make their point, so the lies continue.

On the other hand truth never changes.

 

[revsdd]

Don't you get tired of this? Telling us we are hilarious and so on? Quite frankly, I have grown weary of the repetition (mine as well as yours).

Bidding you farewell until something new breaks in the Vosper case.

Almost a year ago I was contemplating cutting back on WC2 dramatically because it was just getting tiresome. Same people posting the same things over and over again. Then I got asked if I'd be a moderator. I thought about it - for quite a while because of this - and agreed, but sometimes I wonder why. It's still the same people posting the same things over and over again.

In any event, if the book doesn't change then one could ask why Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians don't have exactly the same Bible. Oh. I know. Because each of those communities has adapted it over the years and made their own choices.

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

 

[Inukshuk]

It's locked in its wtf-state.

That's what I thought of Merchant of Venice - on first read through, in high school English class. It wasn't until I had read it many times, with discussion and Coles notes that I got the nuances of phrases like 'The quality of mercy is not strained',' The man that hath no music in himself', 'if you prick us do we not bleed?' The words didn't change - my understanding of them did.
The Bible is complex. I don't know if you've studied the Bible or if your education has come from the handful of absolutist posters here.

 

[Mendalla]

I remember my atheist buddy trying to tell me I wasn't a real Christian because I wasn't a literalist and was even dubious about some parts of the Bible. A nuanced, thoughtful position on the Bible is hard for atheists to deal with because they can't just bash it so they have to try to force the discussion on to the most simplistic, literalist level. It is basically saying that the Bible has to be rejected in toto because it can be read this bad way, regardless of the fact that others can read it other ways.

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

Or your buddy was right. Even you can recognize you are not a real Christian now. I think both Paul and Jesus are pretty clear on how they expect to be interpreted. One way narrow path Jesus does not ever give any indication that there is any other way.

 

[chansen]

Unlike PG13 and AC33, I think there are other ways of being a Christian. You want to say I'm as dogmatic as they are, but I'm not. My point is, it's easy to fall into the trap they're in, because the bible sucks and it's easy to read it in the way they do.

The plain reading of the bible can take you where they are. And because it's so easy, there are lots of people like PG13 and AC33. That's a problem. Many of you won't admit it, but that's a problem.

 

[Pontifex Geronimo 13]

Unlike PG13 and AC33, I think there are other ways of being a Christian. You want to say I'm as dogmatic as they are, but I'm not. My point is, it's easy to fall into the trap they're in, because the bible sucks and it's easy to read it in the way they do.

You can say it's easy to read it the way we do, but it isn't. If it was, you'd be a Christian too.

E= MC2 is easy to read. Anyone can quote it and remember it. Getting it is another thing.

 

[Mendalla]

The plain reading of the bible can take you where they are. And because it's so easy, there are lots of people like PG13 and AC33. That's a problem. Many of you won't admit it, but that's a problem.

The solution, really, is to recognize the risk inherent in using any sole source for your spiritual and moral wisdom. If you reject wisdom from outside your own tradition, you open yourself to "fundamentalism" and exclusivism. Make the Bible (or whatever) your primary source, if you like, but always be prepared to examine it critically in light of what you find in other sources, including your own reason and intuition. I don't even have a primary source anymore, but have my personal "faith" (for lack of a better term) that draws on several.