independent and unofficial
Prince fan community site
Tue 22nd Oct 2019 4:13am
Welcome! Sign up or enter username and password to remember me
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > The Essay that will mow down any atheist: MLK, at age 28!
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 5 of 10 <123456789>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #120 posted 10/08/18 4:04pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

IanRG said:



Ugot2shakesumthin said:


IanRG said:


.


Please learn to read. I have not been defending my faith here at all. Look back, I have been arguing for MLK's positivity regardless of whether you are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or humanist. You can identify which are the things I said because they have IanRG in the top teft corner of the response box.



Whoa. If you say so. Again as someone who spends so much time on the subject of faith and god i expected more you for whatever reason. Your arguments are paper thin then you get upset and start name calling. If any casual person with a curiosity on the topic can destroy your arguments and cause you to lose it, then you have a lot of work to do if this is what you are serious about. Which it seems it is. [Edited 10/8/18 14:57pm]

.


Please learn to read. I have not spent any of my time in this thread on faith, quite the opposite. I spoke about the positivity and love of even a humanist response to MLK's essay to the chagrin of Freaky above.


.


The name calling was started by you when you dismissed people who disagree with you as mentally impaired. Defending against this delusion of superiority is not name calling.


.


Thank you for clearly demonstrating my first point by your posts: Whilst I can learn from things like MLK's writings whether they come from this or that religion or philosophical point of view, one of the faiths I have learned almost nothing from is fundamentalist atheism.



You sound bitter and angry because you are frustred you cannot defend you beliefs. I can read. You are just myopic and focus on whatever little bit supports your limited understanding.

It’s ok. Whatever. But I suggest you continue in educating yourself because I expect better from people of faith than pettiness and ignorance.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #121 posted 10/08/18 4:14pm

toejam

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Toejam, you are mad at God. What happened to harm you like that?


I don't feel harmed. I don't see that God is there to be mad at.

.
[Edited 10/8/18 16:14pm]
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #122 posted 10/08/18 4:22pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

toejam said:

2freaky4church1 said:

Toejam, you are mad at God. What happened to harm you like that?


I don't feel harmed. I don't see that God is there to be mad at.

.
[Edited 10/8/18 16:14pm]


The people of faith are the ones that seem most “mad” lol
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #123 posted 10/08/18 4:26pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Hitchens admitted something:

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #124 posted 10/08/18 4:27pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Time and chance acting on matter. haha.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #125 posted 10/08/18 4:31pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

toejam said:

CherryMoon57 said:

That's a very impressive reading list toejam, if it was a research contest, I am sure you would be the winner. Unfortunately, it is not, at least not for me, even though I have also done my research and I do agree that there will always be scholars who question christianity because that is the job of scholars to question pretty much everything on earth and beyond, and they get paid for it.
.
As for me I have had first hand evidence so the fact remains that God exists because I have had an undeniable proof of His existence, and I also trust the message of love, truth and salvation that the Bible contains. I didn't have to pay anyone for all of this and at the end of the day, Jesus had to die for us so I am not sure where you are getting at with this. All it took me was a minimal degree of faith, not mountains of extensive reading in search of some flaws as an excuse for my inability to trust God.

.

Also remember that not everyone can afford an education yet God is available to anyone, rich or poor, young or old, educated or not, because the amount of knowledge you proudly gather will never impact on how close you are to God.

.

I used to have a minimal degree of faith, and now I don't.

Look at what all those books have done to you neutral


That's because I came to see that the idea of God actually makes better sense as a superstition.

There is no one else that I know personally whom I was ever requested to place faith in first before they would reveal themselves to me.

I get it: you would prefer it if Jesus was just an ordinary guy that you could call up on your cell phone for a chat or to go for a casual walk down the pub with. You are forgetting one thing: Jesus is not your 'average lad'.


Personally, I can't bring myself to believe something that I don't. I can't just make myself believe something on a whim - like choosing between ice-cream flavors. I can pretend, but I don't care to pretend. The evidence and argument need to be persuasive.

You don't say! It sounds to me like you need to think outside the box a little. Or maybe get some fresh air, relax, then come back to it later. Getting close to God doesn't have to be such hard work. He ain't no ice-cream either though... lol

.

So far the closest thing you've offered as a piece of evidence for God is that the Bible is the most widely circulated book in the world. Can you explain why you consider this good evidence for the existence of God? In the Middle Eastern world, the Koran is far and away the most widely read and circulated book. Is the Koran's widespread circulation evidence for its theological reliability? No. Similarly, historians are well aware of several factors for why the Bible gained widespread circulation in the West that do not require an appeal to divine assistance. So why do you see its spread as somehow a reliable indicator of its theological reliability?

.

I never used anything as an evidence for God's existence. I simply said that your comparison of Jesus to a 'fake psychic' was not the best since no other psychics in the history of the world has ever had such a an impact on people's lives, and the same with the popularity of the book in which He features. Again, if He had just been a fake psychic and His miracles had been 'made up', he wouldn't have gone very far, especially after His death (nobody likes a charlatan). Yet, the gospel message keeps on changing lives for good around the world, which corroborates with the high volume of Bibles acquired and read around the world (not just in the Western world). Even in China, the fast growing popularity of the christian message has recently led the authorities to ban the sale of online Bible...


I now have a question for you: What is a 'theological reliability'?

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #126 posted 10/08/18 4:35pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Hitchens admitted something:





Smart little clip. He doesn’t want to covernt everyone. He doesn’t want to “mow down” everyone. He would feel bad if he did.

His “delusions of grandeur” are obviously quite not as explicit as some theists beliefs are.
[Edited 10/8/18 16:36pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #127 posted 10/08/18 4:37pm

IanRG

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

IanRG said:

.

Please learn to read. I have not spent any of my time in this thread on faith, quite the opposite. I spoke about the positivity and love of even a humanist response to MLK's essay to the chagrin of Freaky above.

.

The name calling was started by you when you dismissed people who disagree with you as mentally impaired. Defending against this delusion of superiority is not name calling.

.

Thank you for clearly demonstrating my first point by your posts: Whilst I can learn from things like MLK's writings whether they come from this or that religion or philosophical point of view, one of the faiths I have learned almost nothing from is fundamentalist atheism.

(1) You sound bitter and angry because you are frustred you cannot defend you beliefs.
(2) I can read.

.

(1) Perhaps if I was defending my faith then this could be true. But you have not been reading what I have said.

.

(2) But choose not to? See Point 1.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #128 posted 10/08/18 4:42pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

IanRG said:



Ugot2shakesumthin said:


IanRG said:


.


Please learn to read. I have not spent any of my time in this thread on faith, quite the opposite. I spoke about the positivity and love of even a humanist response to MLK's essay to the chagrin of Freaky above.


.


The name calling was started by you when you dismissed people who disagree with you as mentally impaired. Defending against this delusion of superiority is not name calling.


.


Thank you for clearly demonstrating my first point by your posts: Whilst I can learn from things like MLK's writings whether they come from this or that religion or philosophical point of view, one of the faiths I have learned almost nothing from is fundamentalist atheism.




(1) You sound bitter and angry because you are frustred you cannot defend you beliefs.

(2) I can read.

.


(1) Perhaps if I was defending my faith then this could be true. But you have not been reading what I have said.


.


(2) But choose not to? See Point 1.



You are NOT that stupid to believe this thread is not about faith. You may try and make it smaller for whatever myopic bit fit’s your little argument, I do not believe you are this stupid.

I do believe you are frustrated becasue you can’t defend your beliefs and resort to petty name-calling. Which I find it strange as religion is your thing.

People are turning away from religion is growing numbers, and if people like you are who they have to turn to, then it’s a sad story.
[Edited 10/8/18 16:44pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #129 posted 10/08/18 5:39pm

IanRG

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

IanRG said:

.

(1) Perhaps if I was defending my faith then this could be true. But you have not been reading what I have said.

.

(2) But choose not to? See Point 1.

You are NOT that stupid to believe this thread is not about faith. You may try and make it smaller for whatever myopic bit fit’s your little argument, I do not believe you are this stupid. I do believe you are frustrated becasue you can’t defend your beliefs and resort to petty name-calling. Which I find it strange as religion is your thing. People are turning away from religion is growing numbers, and if people like you are who they have to turn to, then it’s a sad story. [Edited 10/8/18 16:44pm]

.

So you could not find where I defended my faith, so have to change tack.

.

Are you that arrogant that you think you have the right to change what I said to make my replies to about about something I did not say? The name calling was started by you when you dismissed people who disagree with you as mentally impaired. Defending against this delusion of superiority is not name calling.

.

Please try reading - I have never spoken about faith in this thread - just the opposite. I have been consistant in this from before you replied with your claim of superiority over all us who are, in your opinion, mentally impaired.

.

Here, I will help you. This is my first reply:

.

IanRG said:

There is great strength, learnings and eloquence in many of the great teachings about beliefs.

.

If your focus is on the what the teaching can teach us, then you can learn - whether or not your beliefs are the same as the teacher's.

.

If your focus is on making meme one-liners about how your beliefs are better than other's (including where your belief is the delusion that it is wise to deny all other people's beliefs), then set up yourself so you can learn nothing.

.

I have learned so much from the great teachers of Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, the Dreamtime, etc, etc, etc without needing to believe as these teachers believe. The set of religiously held beliefs that has taught me the least is when a fundamentalist atheist thinks they have found the ultimate argument against religions and uses this to force their beliefs on others. The only thing I get from this is an understanding of the lack of dimensions and lack of balance and the shallowness and emptiness of always trying to convince others out of their beliefs as the only defence of their own beliefs.

.

Clearly from my first post I was separating the good and positive teaching by MLK from any specific faith or belief and, therefore, a good learning for all regardless of beliefs. It is only in your mind that I spoke about faith, only in your mind that I have retreated to a smaller position. My position is as above and has been constant. You, on the other hand backtracked from your posted abstract to some unstated "big picture" once I pointed out what the abstract said - It was a justification of the basest of human failures as merely a result of evolution - By not reading what you posted you missed that it said "As a result, [the negative evolutionary outcomes] produce many unintended untoward effects, including the frequent breakdown of restraints in the family and the uninhibited unleashing of violence against outsiders" so you simply could not understand why I said this paper is "excusing racism, misogyny (and misandry), discriminatory treatment of people with different sexual preferences and identities and the violence and greed in political, economic and religious decisions as just a result of evolution is a defeatist position. Nuture vs nature allows for us to better ourselves over a sad evolutionary survival minimum standard - again, this is possible without needing to rely on God".

.

You think you are winning but then so did Charlie Sheen.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #130 posted 10/08/18 11:07pm

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

IanRG said:



Ugot2shakesumthin said:


IanRG said:


.


(1) Perhaps if I was defending my faith then this could be true. But you have not been reading what I have said.


.


(2) But choose not to? See Point 1.



You are NOT that stupid to believe this thread is not about faith. You may try and make it smaller for whatever myopic bit fit’s your little argument, I do not believe you are this stupid. I do believe you are frustrated becasue you can’t defend your beliefs and resort to petty name-calling. Which I find it strange as religion is your thing. People are turning away from religion is growing numbers, and if people like you are who they have to turn to, then it’s a sad story. [Edited 10/8/18 16:44pm]

.


So you could not find where I defended my faith, so have to change tack.


.


Are you that arrogant that you think you have the right to change what I said to make my replies to about about something I did not say? The name calling was started by you when you dismissed people who disagree with you as mentally impaired. Defending against this delusion of superiority is not name calling.


.


Please try reading - I have never spoken about faith in this thread - just the opposite. I have been consistant in this from before you replied with your claim of superiority over all us who are, in your opinion, mentally impaired.


.


Here, I will help you. This is my first reply:


.



IanRG said:


There is great strength, learnings and eloquence in many of the great teachings about beliefs.



.



If your focus is on the what the teaching can teach us, then you can learn - whether or not your beliefs are the same as the teacher's.



.



If your focus is on making meme one-liners about how your beliefs are better than other's (including where your belief is the delusion that it is wise to deny all other people's beliefs), then set up yourself so you can learn nothing.



.



I have learned so much from the great teachers of Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, the Dreamtime, etc, etc, etc without needing to believe as these teachers believe. The set of religiously held beliefs that has taught me the least is when a fundamentalist atheist thinks they have found the ultimate argument against religions and uses this to force their beliefs on others. The only thing I get from this is an understanding of the lack of dimensions and lack of balance and the shallowness and emptiness of always trying to convince others out of their beliefs as the only defence of their own beliefs.



.


Clearly from my first post I was separating the good and positive teaching by MLK from any specific faith or belief and, therefore, a good learning for all regardless of beliefs. It is only in your mind that I spoke about faith, only in your mind that I have retreated to a smaller position. My position is as above and has been constant. You, on the other hand backtracked from your posted abstract to some unstated "big picture" once I pointed out what the abstract said - It was a justification of the basest of human failures as merely a result of evolution - By not reading what you posted you missed that it said "As a result, [the negative evolutionary outcomes] produce many unintended untoward effects, including the frequent breakdown of restraints in the family and the uninhibited unleashing of violence against outsiders" so you simply could not understand why I said this paper is "excusing racism, misogyny (and misandry), discriminatory treatment of people with different sexual preferences and identities and the violence and greed in political, economic and religious decisions as just a result of evolution is a defeatist position. Nuture vs nature allows for us to better ourselves over a sad evolutionary survival minimum standard - again, this is possible without needing to rely on God".


.


You think you are winning but then so did Charlie Sheen.



Lol whatever you say Ian. Why are you so angry? From the beginning of this thread you have been defensive and childish. Im not trying to win anything, you are. You desperately want to win an argument. You’re pissed off because You can’t make a good argument. You look for excuses. The EXAMPLE I posted was merely an example of a far bigger discussion that I didn’t want to bog down this thread with. Glad you clarified and admit that you understand a bit of the bigger picture. You don’t look as lost.

Anyone not drinking the kool-aid and not believing in the unverified delusions you wade in is then in your opinion suffering from “delusions of grandure” lol or akin to Charlie Sheen. That’s not just ass-backwards but verges on insanity.
lol

It’s understandable why you are so upset because you have so much invested in your delusions.
[Edited 10/8/18 23:18pm]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #131 posted 10/09/18 12:08am

BombSquad

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Toejam, you are mad at God. What happened to harm you like that?

like you are mad at the Tooth Fairy

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #132 posted 10/09/18 12:52am

IanRG

Ugot2shakesumthin said:

IanRG said:

.

Clearly from my first post I was separating the good and positive teaching by MLK from any specific faith or belief and, therefore, a good learning for all regardless of beliefs. It is only in your mind that I spoke about faith, only in your mind that I have retreated to a smaller position. My position is as above and has been constant. You, on the other hand backtracked from your posted abstract to some unstated "big picture" once I pointed out what the abstract said - It was a justification of the basest of human failures as merely a result of evolution - By not reading what you posted you missed that it said "As a result, [the negative evolutionary outcomes] produce many unintended untoward effects, including the frequent breakdown of restraints in the family and the uninhibited unleashing of violence against outsiders" so you simply could not understand why I said this paper is "excusing racism, misogyny (and misandry), discriminatory treatment of people with different sexual preferences and identities and the violence and greed in political, economic and religious decisions as just a result of evolution is a defeatist position. Nuture vs nature allows for us to better ourselves over a sad evolutionary survival minimum standard - again, this is possible without needing to rely on God".

.

You think you are winning but then so did Charlie Sheen.

Lol whatever you say Ian. Why are you so angry? From the beginning of this thread you have been defensive and childish. Im not trying to win anything, you are. You desperately want to win an argument. You’re pissed off because You can’t make a good argument. You look for excuses. The EXAMPLE I posted was merely an example of a far bigger discussion that I didn’t want to bog down this thread with. Glad you clarified and admit that you understand a bit of the bigger picture. You don’t look as lost. Anyone not drinking the kool-aid and not believing in the unverified delusions you wade in is then in your opinion suffering from “delusions of grandure” lol or akin to Charlie Sheen. That’s not just ass-backwards but verges on insanity. lol It’s understandable why you are so upset because you have so much invested in your delusions. [Edited 10/8/18 23:18pm]

.

If only you had not expressed surprise in what your abstract was about, then the above might have been been believable - well half believable because it is all still dependent on you imagining people who disagree with you must be mentally impaired. In doing so you imagined I was defending my faith (I have demonstrated that I was not). You imagine I am angry (I am not - I have already thanked you for proving my point). And finally just because I called your repetition of my arguments back at me childish, you just keep on repeating what is said to you over and over - This infants school ground tactic might have worked 45 years ago, not now.

.

You obviously have nothing to add to the conversation, so just as you do in other threads with other people you are just trolling. (Waits for accusation of trolling)

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #133 posted 10/09/18 2:25am

CherryMoon57

avatar

This one's for you toejam, I hope you like it (he even mentions ice-cream).




Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #134 posted 10/09/18 4:46am

Ugot2shakesumt
hin

avatar

IanRG said:



Ugot2shakesumthin said:


IanRG said:


.


Clearly from my first post I was separating the good and positive teaching by MLK from any specific faith or belief and, therefore, a good learning for all regardless of beliefs. It is only in your mind that I spoke about faith, only in your mind that I have retreated to a smaller position. My position is as above and has been constant. You, on the other hand backtracked from your posted abstract to some unstated "big picture" once I pointed out what the abstract said - It was a justification of the basest of human failures as merely a result of evolution - By not reading what you posted you missed that it said "As a result, [the negative evolutionary outcomes] produce many unintended untoward effects, including the frequent breakdown of restraints in the family and the uninhibited unleashing of violence against outsiders" so you simply could not understand why I said this paper is "excusing racism, misogyny (and misandry), discriminatory treatment of people with different sexual preferences and identities and the violence and greed in political, economic and religious decisions as just a result of evolution is a defeatist position. Nuture vs nature allows for us to better ourselves over a sad evolutionary survival minimum standard - again, this is possible without needing to rely on God".


.


You think you are winning but then so did Charlie Sheen.



Lol whatever you say Ian. Why are you so angry? From the beginning of this thread you have been defensive and childish. Im not trying to win anything, you are. You desperately want to win an argument. You’re pissed off because You can’t make a good argument. You look for excuses. The EXAMPLE I posted was merely an example of a far bigger discussion that I didn’t want to bog down this thread with. Glad you clarified and admit that you understand a bit of the bigger picture. You don’t look as lost. Anyone not drinking the kool-aid and not believing in the unverified delusions you wade in is then in your opinion suffering from “delusions of grandure” lol or akin to Charlie Sheen. That’s not just ass-backwards but verges on insanity. lol It’s understandable why you are so upset because you have so much invested in your delusions. [Edited 10/8/18 23:18pm]

.


If only you had not expressed surprise in what your abstract was about, then the above might have been been believable - well half believable because it is all still dependent on you imagining people who disagree with you must be mentally impaired. In doing so you imagined I was defending my faith (I have demonstrated that I was not). You imagine I am angry (I am not - I have already thanked you for proving my point). And finally just because I called your repetition of my arguments back at me childish, you just keep on repeating what is said to you over and over - This infants school ground tactic might have worked 45 years ago, not now.


.


You obviously have nothing to add to the conversation, so just as you do in other threads with other people you are just trolling. (Waits for accusation of trolling)



Oh brother. There were so many abstracts to choose from. That you pretend that it doesn’t apply and chose that as your excuse is sad and pathetic. I’ve added a hell of a lot more than you. I’m not the one who just pouts and resorts to name calling.

You cannot defend your faith or argue your point so you go with name calling. lol You know know that’s all youre doing. Just childish angry trolling. Who do I troll? You’ve been trolling me on this thread. Lol
You really should avoid the religion threads because this is just not your forte. If you can’t debate and don’t like to be put in your place, then maybe just stay away.
wink
[Edited 10/9/18 5:25am]
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #135 posted 10/09/18 6:45am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Ian, where do humanists get how to be human?

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #136 posted 10/09/18 6:45am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

Bombsquad, will you defend Islam?

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #137 posted 10/09/18 7:13am

BombSquad

avatar

2freaky4church1 said:

Bombsquad, will you defend Islam?

any organized religion - especially with missionary ambitions - is usless and potentially dangerous garbage

BUT I still will defend the right of people to stick to all that superstition schlock of any color, as long as they do no harm to others. so there.

Ideally speaking, the President of the United States and the dumbest person in the country would be two different people. Oh well.... money can't fix stupid
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #138 posted 10/09/18 2:13pm

IanRG

2freaky4church1 said:

Ian, where do humanists get how to be human?

.

God's existence is not dependant on the humanist believing God exists. God's love for us is not dependant on us loving God. God's inspiration and help is not dependant on human rituals or being in the right club.

.

We have seen an abstract of a paper that is about how our basest failings "including the frequent breakdown of restraints in the family and the uninhibited unleashing of violence against outsiders" can be seen as merely the result of evolution. This is incomplete and allows the excuse that it is natural to be racist, misogynist (and misandrist) and for the discriminatory treatment of people with different sexual preferences and identities and for the violence and greed in political, economic and religious decisions. It is an unfortunate reality that this is part of being human.

.

The fortunate reality is we can be better than this. The inspiration to be better than this is those of us who seek to be better than this. It is self-sacrificing love people demonstrate on a daily basis where people do things that are counter-evolutionary and may be at great cost. It is the early Christians going against commonsense and cultural laws against touching people with different diseases collectively known at that time as leprosy to treat and care for the sick inspired by Jesus doing the same. It is the train driver in the Paris Metro crash who watched the oncoming out of control train coming towards him but stayed on the PA to get most of the passengers off his train before the crash at the cost of his life. It is the people who stand up for the victims of those basest failings to do our best to stop or overcome these "untoward effects" of evolution. It is those of us who follow the Beatitudes and the two Great Commandments in preference to the 10 commandments and modern applications of ancient temple laws. It is those of us who follow the four truths or the five pillars or seek to be not like Naroondarie’s Wives. It is how all this inspires others, whether or not, they believe in God to do the same because, whether it is a direct intervention by God (Eg being born as one of us, dieing for us and then saving us) or the inspiration of God in our souls is irrelevant. Whether you believe it is from God, Allah, etc or an envisaged evolutionary outcome that causes you to believe in self-sacrificial love, it is the self-sacrificial love and how we are inspired by love in general that is the key to us making ourselves better than these "untoward" evolutionary outcomes. It is this that makes us more complete humane humans.

[Edited 10/9/18 16:06pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #139 posted 10/10/18 12:30am

toejam

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:
Look at what all those books have done to you neutral

.

They have only increased my understanding of Judeo-Christian origins.

.

I get it: you would prefer it if Jesus was just an ordinary guy that you could call up on your cell phone for a chat or to go for a casual walk down the pub with. You are forgetting one thing: Jesus is not your 'average lad'.

.

As far as I can tell, Jesus was an 'average lad'. He was likely a failed doomsday preacher whose predictions of an imminent cataclysmic apocalypse within his generation, like so many before and after him, was proven wrong by the uneventful passing of time. Jesus was also an 'average lad' in the sense that he died and stayed dead.

.

It sounds to me like you need to think outside the box a little. Or maybe get some fresh air, relax, then come back to it later. Getting close to God doesn't have to be such hard work. He ain't no ice-cream either though... lol

.

I'm relaxed. Notice how you’re trying to have it both ways here. Just a sentence earlier, you were saying that one shouldn’t expect it to be easy to contact Jesus like one can contact one's sibling on a cellphone because, in your view, he isn’t your 'average lad'. Now you’re saying that it shouldn’t be hard work. So which is it? Seems to me whether one goes with hard work or a little work, Jesus' absence remains consistent.

.

I never used anything as an evidence for God's existence. I simply said that your comparison of Jesus to a 'fake psychic' was not the best since no other psychics in the history of the world has ever had such a an impact on people's lives, and the same with the popularity of the book in which He features. Again, if He had just been a fake psychic and His miracles had been 'made up', he wouldn't have gone very far, especially after His death (nobody likes a charlatan). Yet, the gospel message keeps on changing lives for good around the world, which corroborates with the high volume of Bibles acquired and read around the world (not just in the Western world). Even in China, the fast growing popularity of the christian message has recently led the authorities to ban the sale of online Bible...

.

Mormonism has certainly had a major impact on many people’s lives, and it has grown at roughly the same rate Christianity did in its initial centuries, ~10% growth per decade (see Bart Ehrman’s “The Triumph of Christianity” or Rodney Stark’s “The Rise of Christianity”). It is fair to say that Mormonism was started by a fake – Joseph Smith. So there is nothing unreasonable in the idea that fake religions can survive and thrive.

.

Personally, I don’t think the message of the Historical Jesus went very far - only about as far as the generation in which his initial misguided apocalyptic predictions anticipated. After Jesus' death, Christianity became more about faith in the resurrection of Jesus as a means of salvation, and other silly stuff like virgin births, atonement theology, Christological questions (Trinitarianism), etc. It is very unlikely this is what Jesus himself preached in his lifetime. Christianity evolved quickly after Jesus’ death from the religion of Jesus (i.e. a form of Messianic, apocalyptic, 2nd Temple Judaism) to the religion about Jesus.

.

I now have a question for you: What is a 'theological reliability'?

.

Are you asking me what the term means, or what I think is theologically reliable? The former – Theological reliability would be reliable statements about God. The latter - What I think is a reliable statement about God is that he is a superstition.

.

[Edited 10/10/18 1:48am]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #140 posted 10/10/18 2:27am

IanRG

toejam said:

CherryMoon57 said:
Look at what all those books have done to you neutral

.

They have only increased my understanding of Judeo-Christian origins.

.

.

Mormonism has certainly had a major impact on many people’s lives, and it has grown at roughly the same rate Christianity did in its initial centuries, ~10% growth per decade (see Bart Ehrman’s “The Triumph of Christianity” or Rodney Stark’s “The Rise of Christianity”). It is fair to say that Mormonism was started by a fake – Joseph Smith. So there is nothing unreasonable in the idea that fake religions can survive and thrive.

.

Personally, I don’t think the message of the Historical Jesus went very far - only about as far as the generation in which his initial misguided apocalyptic predictions anticipated. After Jesus' death, Christianity became more about faith in the resurrection of Jesus as a means of salvation, and other silly stuff like virgin births, atonement theology, Christological questions (Trinitarianism), etc. It is very unlikely this is what Jesus himself preached in his lifetime. Christianity evolved quickly after Jesus’ death from the religion of Jesus (i.e. a form of Messianic, apocalyptic, 2nd Temple Judaism) to the religion about Jesus.

.

I now have a question for you: What is a 'theological reliability'?

.

Are you asking me what the term means, or what I think is theologically reliable? The former – Theological reliability would be reliable statements about God. The latter - What I think is a reliable statement about God is that he is a superstition.

.

[Edited 10/10/18 1:48am]

.

Bart Ehrman - He is the person who lied to you after you paid to get access to his private forum! And what did he lie to you about?

.

He falsely claimed a reference supported a slower rate of growth of early Christianity than accepted by most academics. You took him at his word whilst I checked his reference and found his reference supported the academically accepted rate. You, sure I must be wrong, asked Bart about this and he agreed with me that his reference did not say what Bart originally said it said. He then passed it off with the flippant remark that is it all guesswork anyway!

.

No matter how long the list, if you only read to find confirmational bias and not understanding and you don't question what you read, then you have not increased your understanding of the origins of Judeo-Christian orgins, you have just found what you want to believe.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #141 posted 10/10/18 5:04am

CherryMoon57

avatar

toejam said:

I now have a question for you: What is a 'theological reliability'?

.

Are you asking me what the term means, or what I think is theologically reliable? The former – Theological reliability would be reliable statements about God. The latter - What I think is a reliable statement about God is that he is a superstition.


The statement you are advancing has no reliability in it whatsoever, for the following reasons:

1) It is based on your own understanding.

2) As we have discussed previously, your understanding is heavily based on a lack of proof - or evidence - ie. that which you were looking for but that you have not (yet) found. You had an expectation, and either a) it was not filled b) you think it was not filled. Your original expectation indicated that you initially believed that there was going to be an evidence. Perhaps you even started to imagine what the evidence would be like... The fact that the evidence has not been noticed by or revealed to yourself (while other people noticed something) does not mean that your particular lack of evidence should prevail over the existence of evidence that was revealed to others. That would be telling others that your perception (or understanding) is superior to theirs.

3) An absence of findings being what it is (absence = nothing), it does not constitute a reliable evidence.

----------

An evidence (based on facts) for the reliability of the Bible would go like this:

There are more surviving ancient copies of the New Testament than any other ancient texts. Ancient copies of works by Herodotus, Tacitus and Caesar can be numbered on two hands but there are over 5,800 Greeks texts, 10,000 Latin texts and 9,300 other language text of the New Testament from the first three centuries. The gap between the original and the earliest surviving copy is 1,300 for Herodotus but just 300 years for the full New Testament, so accuracy is much more likely.

So basically, the evidence for the events on which Christianity is based is more solid than the evidence for any other ancient historical event.

----------

That said, the main message is not based on gathering as much evidence as possible about God or Jesus before we die. It is interesting, but it's not the point. The biggest point of the message rests on how much faith we have in God. An analogy of this would be a marriage. Before you get married you are not going to get any evidence of its future outcome. Yet people get married and give it a go. It is a contract based on love and trust, not evidences.

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #142 posted 10/10/18 7:41am

jaawwnn

avatar

Why would you need proof or evidence if you have faith? Seems to undermind the very concept to my mind, no?

I don't have faith, you do, whatever who cares, right?

I only start caring when your faith, or at least your priest, tells you you should be controlling other people's lives, e.g. by being pro-life, because it's part of your religion.

[Edited 10/10/18 7:47am]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #143 posted 10/10/18 10:28am

CherryMoon57

avatar

jaawwnn said:

Why would you need proof or evidence if you have faith? Seems to undermind the very concept to my mind, no?

I don't have faith, you do, whatever who cares, right?

I only start caring when your faith, or at least your priest, tells you you should be controlling other people's lives, e.g. by being pro-life, because it's part of your religion.

[Edited 10/10/18 7:47am]


You obviously haven't been following the discussion... toejam - not me - was originally asking for a theological reliability regarding the Bible... He then contrasted this with his - supposedly more reliable - statement that God is a superstition, without presenting any evidence for it. My post above (#141) was my response.

Now if you don't care, no one is forcing you to read this - as I can see you have managed to skip quite a few posts anyway - so please feel free to move on if you are not interested.

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #144 posted 10/10/18 12:03pm

jaawwnn

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

jaawwnn said:

Why would you need proof or evidence if you have faith? Seems to undermind the very concept to my mind, no?

I don't have faith, you do, whatever who cares, right?

I only start caring when your faith, or at least your priest, tells you you should be controlling other people's lives, e.g. by being pro-life, because it's part of your religion.

[Edited 10/10/18 7:47am]


You obviously haven't been following the discussion... toejam - not me - was originally asking for a theological reliability regarding the Bible... He then contrasted this with his - supposedly more reliable - statement that God is a superstition, without presenting any evidence for it. My post above (#141) was my response.

Now if you don't care, no one is forcing you to read this - as I can see you have managed to skip quite a few posts anyway - so please feel free to move on if you are not interested.

No I read them. I know you made largely the same point as me in regards faith vs. proof, I was just hanging a lantern on it.

I suppose I was musing aloud and trying to work out why anyone would be bothered if you did or did not have faith, and coming to the conclusion that it matters when it direct affects your life.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #145 posted 10/10/18 1:39pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

jaawwnn said:

CherryMoon57 said:


You obviously haven't been following the discussion... toejam - not me - was originally asking for a theological reliability regarding the Bible... He then contrasted this with his - supposedly more reliable - statement that God is a superstition, without presenting any evidence for it. My post above (#141) was my response.

Now if you don't care, no one is forcing you to read this - as I can see you have managed to skip quite a few posts anyway - so please feel free to move on if you are not interested.

No I read them. I know you made largely the same point as me in regards faith vs. proof, I was just hanging a lantern on it.

I suppose I was musing aloud and trying to work out why anyone would be bothered if you did or did not have faith, and coming to the conclusion that it matters when it direct affects your life.

As you can see some faithless people on here must be very bothered because you can guarantee they will always turn up the moment 'God' appears in a thread.

Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #146 posted 10/10/18 2:03pm

toejam

avatar

CherryMoon57 said:

As we have discussed previously, your understanding is heavily based on a lack of proof - or evidence - ie. that which you were looking for but that you have not (yet) found. You had an expectation, and either a) it was not filled b) you think it was not filled. Your original expectation indicated that you initially believed that there was going to be an evidence. Perhaps you even started to imagine what the evidence would be like... The fact that the evidence has not been noticed by or revealed to yourself (while other people noticed something) does not mean that your particular lack of evidence should prevail over the existence of evidence that was revealed to others. That would be telling others that your perception (or understanding) is superior to theirs.

.

Yes, I think my perception about God (that he is a superstition) is superior to others' perception that he actually exists. Evidence for God being a superstition lies in the form of his continued absence after many years of sincerely asking from the heart "Are you there?", as well as the failure of and fraudulence of Biblical prophecies and expectations. To give just one example, the Historical Jesus and Paul likely thought and taught a cataclysmic end-of-the-epoch apocalypse was to occur within their generation. The Jesus of Mark (the earliest surviving gospel) tells his disciples that some would live to see the day that the Son of Man would arrive in the sky on clouds to send out angels to gather the elect. Similarly, Paul, throughout his genuine epistles, regularly expresses the expectation of apocalyptic imminence. The apocalypse didn't happen as prophesied. This is what we would expect if their God was a superstition. Similarly today, if God is a superstition, we might expect believers to have nothing else to fall back on except personal, unverifiable internal confirmations, poor excuses for Biblical failings, and bad/circular arguments such as pointing to the survival of their religion through history and number of manuscripts - as if either of those factors are necessary signs for reliable theology.

.

An evidence (based on facts) for the reliability of the Bible would go like this:

There are more surviving ancient copies of the New Testament than any other ancient texts. Ancient copies of works by Herodotus, Tacitus and Caesar can be numbered on two hands but there are over 5,800 Greeks texts, 10,000 Latin texts and 9,300 other language text of the New Testament from the first three centuries. The gap between the original and the earliest surviving copy is 1,300 for Herodotus but just 300 years for the full New Testament, so accuracy is much more likely.

So basically, the evidence for the events on which Christianity is based is more solid than the evidence for any other ancient historical event.

.

94% of the surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are from the 9th century or later. There are NO surviving manuscripts from the 1st century, and only a handful of the tiniest of fragments from the 2nd. We start getting larger chunks in the 3rd, but it is not until the 4th century until we start getting more-or-less substantially complete New Testaments. The number of manuscripts tells us little about its theological reliability. In 2,000yrs time it will not be a sign of the Koran's theological reliability when fragments of it are the most numerously found texts in archaeological digs. Number of manuscripts from centuries later is no guarantor of reliability. It is only evidence of the religion's spread. And we know that fake religions can and do spread.

.

That said, the main message is not based on gathering as much evidence as possible about God or Jesus before we die. It is interesting, but it's not the point. The biggest point of the message rests on how much faith we have in God. An analogy of this would be a marriage. Before you get married you are not going to get any evidence of its future outcome. Yet people get married and give it a go. It is a contract based on love and trust, not evidences.

.

I don't love and trust my partner based on a whim of faith. She has demonstrated to me over the years that she is a trustworthy person, worthy of my love. We didn't decide in advance before we met each other that we would place faith in each other. We learned to trust each other after meeting each other. Our trust in each other has grown based on both of us understanding each other more. God on the other hand remains absent for both her and myself (she is a former Muslim).

.

[Edited 10/10/18 14:05pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #147 posted 10/10/18 2:27pm

2freaky4church
1

avatar

You can't say you love someone if you do not get what the term means.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #148 posted 10/10/18 3:01pm

CherryMoon57

avatar

toejam said:

  • 94% of the surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament are from the 9th century or later. There are NO surviving manuscripts from the 1st century, and only a handful of the tiniest of fragments from the 2nd. We start getting larger chunks in the 3rd, but it is not until the 4th century until we start getting more-or-less substantially complete New Testaments. The number of manuscripts tells us little about its theological reliability. In 2,000yrs time it will not be a sign of the Koran's theological reliability when fragments of it are the most numerously found texts in archaeological digs. Number of manuscripts from centuries later is no guarantor of reliability. It is only evidence of the religion's spread. And we know that fake religions can and do spread.

.

You should read this: https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence


  • I don't love and trust my partner based on a whim of faith. She has demonstrated to me over the years that she is a trustworthy person, worthy of my love. We didn't decide in advance before we met each other that we would place faith in each other. We learned to trust each other after meeting each other. Our trust in each other has grown based on both of us understanding each other more. God on the other hand remains absent for both her and myself (she is a former Muslim).


Glad to hear that your partner has passed the tough 'toe-jam' reliability test and is finally considered 'worthy' of your love. What a lucky girl she must feel!



Open your heart open your mind
A train is leaving all day
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #149 posted 10/10/18 4:21pm

IanRG

God is empathy and love. If you cannot empathise with why other people may think something is racist, if you can't love someone without first having proof of their worthiness, then for all the research, you will just miss what is front of you each and every time.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 5 of 10 <123456789>Last »
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > The Essay that will mow down any atheist: MLK, at age 28!