HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » There aint no god, if the...

Wed May 11, 2016, 05:51 PM

There aint no god, if there is may she strike this thread DEAD

see, no god.


yes, I stole this from George

121 replies, 7029 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 121 replies Author Time Post
Reply There aint no god, if there is may she strike this thread DEAD (Original post)
Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 OP
Gomez163 May 2016 #1
jonno99 May 2016 #2
Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #3
Dr Hobbitstein May 2016 #8
jonno99 May 2016 #9
Major Nikon May 2016 #10
jonno99 May 2016 #12
Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #14
jonno99 May 2016 #16
Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #30
jonno99 May 2016 #35
Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #43
jonno99 May 2016 #46
Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #47
jonno99 May 2016 #51
Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #84
trotsky May 2016 #50
Manifestor_of_Light May 2016 #77
trotsky May 2016 #85
rug May 2016 #86
jonno99 May 2016 #87
Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #89
jonno99 May 2016 #90
trotsky May 2016 #93
Act_of_Reparation May 2016 #94
Brettongarcia May 2016 #54
trotsky May 2016 #15
jonno99 May 2016 #22
trotsky May 2016 #25
jonno99 May 2016 #36
trotsky May 2016 #37
jonno99 May 2016 #41
trotsky May 2016 #48
Major Nikon May 2016 #75
mr blur May 2016 #38
jonno99 May 2016 #42
whatthehey May 2016 #52
Iggo May 2016 #64
jonno99 May 2016 #91
whatthehey May 2016 #95
Major Nikon May 2016 #76
jonno99 May 2016 #88
whatthehey May 2016 #96
jonno99 May 2016 #110
whatthehey May 2016 #115
trotsky May 2016 #116
Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #33
trotsky May 2016 #34
dchill May 2016 #78
rug May 2016 #4
Buzz Clik May 2016 #26
MFM008 May 2016 #5
Jackie Wilson Said May 2016 #6
rug May 2016 #7
Major Nikon May 2016 #11
rug May 2016 #13
Major Nikon May 2016 #17
rug May 2016 #18
Major Nikon May 2016 #19
rug May 2016 #20
Major Nikon May 2016 #21
rug May 2016 #23
Major Nikon May 2016 #24
rug May 2016 #28
Major Nikon May 2016 #29
rug May 2016 #39
Major Nikon May 2016 #40
rug May 2016 #44
Major Nikon May 2016 #45
rug May 2016 #49
Major Nikon May 2016 #53
rug May 2016 #59
Major Nikon May 2016 #60
rug May 2016 #63
Major Nikon May 2016 #66
rug May 2016 #67
Major Nikon May 2016 #70
Lordquinton May 2016 #81
Brettongarcia May 2016 #55
rug May 2016 #56
Brettongarcia May 2016 #58
rug May 2016 #61
Major Nikon May 2016 #62
rug May 2016 #65
Major Nikon May 2016 #68
rug May 2016 #69
Major Nikon May 2016 #71
cleanhippie May 2016 #82
rug May 2016 #83
Brettongarcia May 2016 #72
rug May 2016 #73
Major Nikon May 2016 #74
Manifestor_of_Light May 2016 #79
Brettongarcia May 2016 #92
rug May 2016 #97
Brettongarcia May 2016 #100
Warren Stupidity May 2016 #99
rug May 2016 #102
Brettongarcia May 2016 #103
rug May 2016 #105
Brettongarcia May 2016 #107
rug May 2016 #108
Brettongarcia May 2016 #111
Warren Stupidity May 2016 #112
rug May 2016 #113
Brettongarcia May 2016 #114
Warren Stupidity May 2016 #117
Brettongarcia May 2016 #120
DetlefK May 2016 #27
Major Nikon May 2016 #31
Manifestor_of_Light May 2016 #80
Brettongarcia May 2016 #57
skepticscott May 2016 #104
Iggo May 2016 #32
okasha May 2016 #98
Post removed May 2016 #106
northernsouthern May 2016 #101
stone space May 2016 #109
NeoGreen May 2016 #118
Iggo May 2016 #119
NeoGreen Jun 2016 #121

Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed May 11, 2016, 05:53 PM

1. Here it is

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed May 11, 2016, 06:00 PM

2. Or, His schedule and timing may be a bit different than our own...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #2)

Wed May 11, 2016, 06:06 PM

3. Human beings invented god to deal with mortality and to control others.

If you believe in god, if you are so stricken, rent the movie "The Invention of Lying"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #3)

Wed May 11, 2016, 06:46 PM

8. GREAT film.

 

I may have to watch it again tonight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #3)

Wed May 11, 2016, 09:10 PM

9. Or, some deny there is a God (or creator) in an effort to escape accountability...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #9)

Wed May 11, 2016, 11:14 PM

10. At least you can still sell your children into slavery with no worries

Even if you can't eat shellfish.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #10)

Wed May 11, 2016, 11:38 PM

12. Nah - it's only what comes out of a person that defiles him. No worries...nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #12)

Thu May 12, 2016, 07:39 AM

14. So you have come to abolish the law?

Curiouser and curiouser.

Or maybe you don't follow Mosaic Law because certain evangelists who had already so completely failed to convert mainline Jews to their upstart religion realized they'd never, EVER recruit gentiles in significant numbers if severed foreskins remained the cost of entry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #14)

Thu May 12, 2016, 09:29 AM

16. The law had/has a purpose; but it was not meant to be an end in itself.

Curious indeed - to which "certain evangelists" are you referring?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #16)

Thu May 12, 2016, 10:52 AM

30. Oh, right. Forgot about that.

Doesn't sound like a post hoc rationalization at all. Not in the slightest. Nope, not one bit.

Curious indeed - to which "certain evangelists" are you referring?


You really ought to know this. Read your Bible, sir.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #30)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:00 PM

35. What I find fascinating are those who have the ability to read the minds of others - even if

the others been dead and gone for millennia. What is often frustrating however, is that these same "mind-readers" expect everyone one else to be able read their minds.

Sorry, can't do it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #35)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:27 PM

43. That's a pretty low threshold for fascination.

What's more fascinating to me is that given 1) Christians exempted themselves from Mosaic Law because adherence would be a hard sell to the newly converted gentiles, or 2) a God no one in the history of mankind has demonstrated to exist rescinded a long list of patently absurd rules, regulations, and restrictions painstakingly recorded through not one, not two, but three books of the Old Testament, so now it is totes OK to play football, eat shellfish, take a shit on the sabbath, beat your slaves, make your daughter marry her rapist, kill your disobedient children, or live in the same house with a menstruating woman, you'd go with the "God changed his mind" bit.

Yet I'm the one making a leap here. Now, that is fascinating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #43)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:57 PM

46. As I said, the law had a purpose, it was not meant to be an end unto itself. Rather it was to act

as a pointer.

The object? The One who said that he did not come to abolish, but rather to fulfill the law...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #46)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:00 PM

47. Yeah, I heard your post hoc rationalization the first time around.

It's not any more convincing the second. But if you wanna go for a third, knock yourself out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #47)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:44 PM

51. Well, you did make the claim that:

certain evangelists who had already so completely failed to convert mainline Jews to their upstart religion realized they'd never, EVER recruit gentiles in significant numbers if severed foreskins remained the cost of entry.

...but you have yet to present any historical account where this "realization" occurred. Not to mention that it does not comport with any teachings of Christ.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #51)

Thu May 12, 2016, 11:00 PM

84. Acts 15

Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled[e] and from blood. For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.”


As a bonus, those evangelists I was referring to are mentioned by name there. Happy hunting!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #35)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:41 PM

50. Well, you claimed to have that ability yourself.

Saying that "some" non-believers are denying your god to "escape accountability."

Now that's fascinating indeed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #50)

Thu May 12, 2016, 07:51 PM

77. Matthew 5:17

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

So, Jesus does not have a problem with the Old Testament law and all its cruelties, absurdities and contradictions. You can have slaves, and kill your disobedient children and all that stuff.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #77)

Fri May 13, 2016, 08:09 AM

85. Lucky Christians get to have it both ways, though.

If they don't like something in the Old Testament, well just declare that was the stuff that Jesus negated. But if it's something they do like, well that's the part that he came to fulfill.

Wouldn't have survived so long if it wasn't such a fluid, open-to-any-interpretation, good for the powerful, good for the oppressed, religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #85)

Fri May 13, 2016, 08:20 AM

86. It's much more rational than the rigid doctrinaire approach like "Religion poisons everything."

 

Wouldn't you agree, trotsky?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #77)

Fri May 13, 2016, 12:35 PM

87. As I've said a few times now - the law had a pupose, one purpose was to provide structure

for Jewish community and religious life. The main purpose of the law however, was to act as pointer to Christ - Matt 5:17.

So what does it mean that the law is fulfilled in Christ? I would argue that this means that the law is no longer our primary focus - but rather the teaching of Christ as espoused in the new testament.

And as far as slavery goes, this article does a fine job in describing the tension between the present and the ideal...
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/305549/jewish/Torah-Slavery-and-the-Jews.htm

Regarding disobedient children? Here is a well written article:
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-questions/doesnt-bible-condone-killing-ones-rebellious-child/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #87)

Fri May 13, 2016, 12:47 PM

89. LOL

Holy shit. Get a load of this crap:

So you can see where I'm getting to with the slavery thing. If G‑d would simply and explicitly declare all the rules, precisely as He wants His world to look and what we need to do about it, the Torah would never become real to us. No matter how much we would do and how good we would be, we would remain aliens to the process.


If God had just made slavery against the rules, the Torah wouldn't be real to us. Well then, when you put it like THAT, it makes perfect sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Act_of_Reparation (Reply #89)

Fri May 13, 2016, 01:05 PM

90. Sure - it's easy to compare contemporary society to the practices of the ancient world.

How do you think we got to our current contemporary (egalitarian) society? It didn't happen in a vacuum.

Derp indeed...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #90)

Fri May 13, 2016, 01:56 PM

93. But we're not making that comparison.

The comparison is between the purported moral ideal that believers think their god has, and the morals that he/she/it has communicated to us.

How do you think we got to our current contemporary (egalitarian) society?

With religion fighting every step of the way, even at this very moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #90)

Fri May 13, 2016, 02:16 PM

94. You aren't very good at this.

Mosaic Law reflects the normative social values of the 5th - 3rd centuries BCE. These rules were written by men, and fell out of favor as social norms progressed. That is exactly what I've been saying this whole fucking time.

You have not been saying this the whole time. You've been saying God made these rules. If God is timeless, you don't get to hide behind historical relativism. Sorry.

And if your God is also omnipotent, you don't get to say "God can't do x because y".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #12)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:19 PM

54. So it was OK for Jesus to change the food laws

.. of the Old Testament god? Who often said his laws were eternal?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #9)

Thu May 12, 2016, 08:31 AM

15. How dumb and/or evil do you think non-believers are?

If we "deny" a god to "escape accountability," that must mean that secretly we KNOW there is a god, and we don't want to acknowledge that in order to do unholy things.

That means you think we must be stupid, because how would we escape god's punishment if we know he exists? What good would it do us to simply deny it?

That also means you think we must be evil, because we are so desperate to "escape accountability" for our bad deeds.

How neat. Care to clarify?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #15)

Thu May 12, 2016, 09:40 AM

22. For starters, none of us are free from evil, so please don't feel like you're being singled out.

And I would suggest that one doesn't have to be stupid to attempt to escape accountability. Everyone from the kid who steals from his mom to the guy running from the cops; they know that eventually they're going to get caught - and yet they still try to run & hide. Why is that? Seems to me it is simply human nature...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #22)

Thu May 12, 2016, 10:08 AM

25. Wow.

So yeah, you think non-believers are basically ignorant children who are trying to get away with being bad. That's a special kind of twisted.

I don't deny your god, I simply don't believe it exists. I'm not trying to avoid accountability. Do you believe me?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #25)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:09 PM

36. Please don't be amongst those who take offense when none is intended.

If you reread my post you will notice that there is an implied range of ages.

I'm not trying to avoid accountability. Do you believe me?

Again, if you look at the top of this sub-thread you will see that I began my remarks with the qualifying language:
Or, some...

So, If the shoe doesn't fit, take it off...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #36)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:56 PM

37. I don't really care if you claim it's not directed at me.

It's insulting and demeaning. It perpetuates bigotry against non-believers as a group. It's a particularly stubborn and nauseating aspect of traditional Christian theology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #37)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:19 PM

41. Fair enough. I would suggest then that you limit your own broad-brush assertions/assumptions

- or is it your position that non-believers are immune from presenting arguments that are "insulting and demeaning, and perpetuate bigotry" - against believers?

Because I have noticed particularly stubborn and nauseating comments against Christian theology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #41)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:09 PM

48. Since I said no such thing, I do not need to limit what I've said.

Don't turn this around on others - deal with your own behavior first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #41)

Thu May 12, 2016, 07:24 PM

75. Anti-theism =/ bigotry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #22)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:57 PM

38. Do you really believe this specious nonsense?

 

Amazing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mr blur (Reply #38)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:22 PM

42. Point out the error - please. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #42)

Thu May 12, 2016, 03:40 PM

52. Let me count the ways

1) How does denying gods remove accountability if they actually exist? If they don't exist, there is no divine accountability. If they do, disbelieving in them only makes it worse. Disbelieving in gods and caring one way or another about any accountability to them is as silly as a scientific materialist being scared of ghosts.
2) Accountability is plenty available in the real world. I know prisons exist.
3) Faith in Christianity is the best way to deny accountability, because repentance is always an option. Presidential pardons are a bit less freely available. If accouintability to gods worried us, we'd convert.
4) Any putative deity levying infinite punishment for finite sin is far more accountable to humanity than we ever could be to him. If such a deity did exist, they would be the vilest most wicked entity imaginable no more worthy of worship than infant cancer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatthehey (Reply #52)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:10 PM

64. #4...mmf !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatthehey (Reply #52)

Fri May 13, 2016, 01:07 PM

91. Thanks for a thoughtful reply - my responses:

1) How does denying gods remove accountability if they actually exist? If they don't exist, there is no divine accountability. If they do, disbelieving in them only makes it worse. Disbelieving in gods and caring one way or another about any accountability to them is as silly as a scientific materialist being scared of ghosts.
Why do people run from cops - even when surrounded - knowing they are going to be caught?

2) Accountability is plenty available in the real world. I know prisons exist.
Sure - for those who are caught and convicted.

3) Faith in Christianity is the best way to deny accountability, because repentance is always an option. Presidential pardons are a bit less freely available. If accouintability to gods worried us, we'd convert.
Some prisoners curse their captors even as the needle is about to go in. Throughout history we see many examples of those who would rather die than "bend the knee". It's hard to account for the stubborn pride of humans. IOW - I'm unconvinced that we would all choose "repentance" if offered.

4) Any putative deity levying infinite punishment for finite sin is far more accountable to humanity than we ever could be to him. If such a deity did exist, they would be the vilest most wicked entity imaginable no more worthy of worship than infant cancer.
Unless - we misunderstand the nature and depth of humanities sin and the extent (or price paid) to which God tried to remedy the rift. If God is not just, then what you say is true...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #91)

Fri May 13, 2016, 02:29 PM

95. I think you're missing the point

1) How many people run from cops who they cannot see, cannot hear, cannot touch and cannot detect? Cops who are not immanent in the natural world even? The cop analogy is silly because, unlike gods, we know they exist and they only affect concerns for accountability when we know they are in a position to arrest or punish. Running from the accountability of God for nonbelievers would be like running from an otherwise empty crime scene because we saw the movie Robocop and think it's going to burst through the wall. I think believers just can't quite internalize what disbelief is. There is absolutely no difference to me between the threat of hell and the threat of a stocking full of coal from Santa if I'm a naughty boy, or the threat of being reincarnated as a slug in my next samsara stage. They are exactly, 100% analogous to me. I know they are not to you and it may even be an unsettling or offensive thought to consider, but it's the truth. How much do Hindu concerns for a negative reincarnation affect your ethical choices? That's exactly (unless you are a rather unusual believer) how much concern I give to accountability to God.

2) Not sure of the point here. Even for those who are not caught, the accountability of the judicial system is a genuine concern. They know they can be caught and convicted. That's why they try not to be. This is the inverse of the above point. We know cops exist. We certainly don't run in panicked flight from cops who are not there and cannot see us, but neither do we shoot people in crowded places wearing a nametag then sit down in front of a CCTV camera holding up "you can't take me pigs" signs until they arrive. Well, sanity and desire to live as a given. Cops and prisons are a systemic deterrent to antisocial behasvior, but they are so only because we have real world data and experience, hopefully at second hand, of arrests, convictions, and punishments. Divine accountability is not a concern to nonbelievers. Judicial accountability is.

3) I may need to clarify. IF you have any concern for accountability to the Xian god, then you would rationally choose Christianity regardless of your sins, because Christianity offers a path to repentance thence salvation. Nonbelievers have no concern for repentance because, by definition, we don't believe there's anybody there to repent to, or to save, or indeed barring a few Buddhist atheists, anything to be saved from. Deathbed conversions of well known atheists are common glurge but nigh universal lies. it does however have an interesting corollary to point....

4) Without trying to cause offense, this idea has always flabbergaasted me. Correct if you could my understanding..

God, all knowing and all powerful, created a species he knew would fall from grace, and could have created them differently, even retaining free will. He created, obviously with no duress or imposed necessity as who can force God, the means of temptation to that fall and an eternal punishment to apply to that fall. He imposed that penalty on descendents of those who fell in perpetuity regardless of their own personal virtue or failings, and who were never given the choice to fall from grace or not initially. He then waited for many hundreds of generations before giving people a chance to be saved, by believing that he incarnated himself as a sacrificial atonement to himself, essentially "killing" only the human incarnation of a homoousian omnipotent being in a way which, while certainly painful to humans at least, hardly approaches the fate of Robert-Francois Damiens who lacked the consolation of being the divine creator at the time of his demise. And if we, another hundred or so generations away, do not accept this despite many competing claims about eternal verities and with zero empirical evidence to choose between them, then we are condemned to eternal infinite punishment?

That's not the way believers like to put it, but is there any incorrect statement there (and do note I'm not at this point using belittling and dismissive cultural analogs tempting though that is)? If there isn't, exactly how terrible was the fall, how culpable was created mankind, how unforgivable should it be for those who never fell, how awesome was the attempted remedy on God's part and how reasonable is the case that we should accept that remedy from evidence limited to fairly typical Near Eastern mythology? And much more germane, how reasonable is the punishment which is infinite and irrevocable? This is worse than Kafka. God is not just withholding evidence of the charges to Joseph K, he is withholding evidence that there's even a judge and a court to try him, and then saying that once he is dragged into court, there is no chance to seek mitigation or clemency (that corollary BTW - I would surely seek repentance were I given credible empirical evidence that there was anybody to repent to and be saved from. The idea of being a martyr for atheism at the Pearly Gates would be insane).

That's what makes God as Christians typically describe him a vicious loathsome monster. He made us designed to fall when he could have designed us to choose grace in the first place, placed temptation in our path knowing we would succumb, built a hell he did not need to build to punish every human for the fall of some (but he loves us), went millennia before giving us hope and then hid that hope in humdrum syncretic folk tales with no real evidence (for anybody not alive in 1st Century CE Judea), and then sends us to that infinite eternal punishment for not guessing right which religious claims to follow in a few scant decades on Earth, giving no second chances once his very existence is proven to us.

Again how am I wrong here? Again how is that not monstrous evil? If you really want to posit an admirable, let alone worshipful, God, you have to suggest a God who offers universal salvation after appropriate contrition when contrition is proven applicable. A very few believers go this route but most don't because that only makes Christians special for a short blink of eternity.

ETA final reminder - my complaints about hell are complaints against the fictional construct of a loving god offering infinite punishment. I have not the slightest twinkle of belief that either exists in reality and live my life entirely as if they did not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #42)

Thu May 12, 2016, 07:30 PM

76. If you rely on fear of completely unverifiable accountability for morals...

then you have no real morals.

Truly ethical personal accountability happens when nobody is looking and you have only yourself to rely on to do the right thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #76)

Fri May 13, 2016, 12:36 PM

88. Agreed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #88)

Fri May 13, 2016, 02:45 PM

96. So surely then morality cannot depend on faith?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatthehey (Reply #96)

Sat May 14, 2016, 11:45 AM

110. I don't know your background, so at with the risk of insulting your

intelligence, I'll simply point out that one of the foundational tenets of Christianity is that no one is moral, no one is righteous - only God.

To drive home this point, scripture goes even further to say that good works performed in an effort to "be moral" (or righteous) are like "filthy rags" when presented to God (e.g. "look at me I'm a good person!".

So there is a rift - an uncrossable chasm. Man cannot "work" his way to God's approval or presence. And worse, according to scripture, our sin requires the penalty of death. Pretty grim for mankind.

God's solution: his son will come to earth, and present himself as a substitute - he will pay the death penalty for the sins of mankind. And to prove his worth - his mastery over death, he overcomes death, and is raised back to life.

Ok, how can this possibly help the problem of our supposed lack of morality? Answer: by accepting this offered gift - in faith - that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to pay the death penalty that was due us. And through this faith we acknowledge that it is not our good works - not our morality that mends the rift between us & God, but rather it is Christ's morality in which we put our faith and hope.

So everything is fixed? What is the problem then? Answer: PRIDE. Very few people like the idea that their goodness, their efforts to be moral don't mean squat - when compared to Christ. It takes humility to accept this truth.

So you accept this "gift" - why do any good things at all if it doesn't make us "moral" in God's eyes. Simple answer: we have been forgiven a huge debt, and in gratitude we should live a life worthy of that forgiveness.

Christ explains this attitude here:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+18:21-35&version=CEV

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #110)

Mon May 16, 2016, 10:55 AM

115. Not really the point though

It doesn't matter if we assume the benign version of Christian moral philosophy as you describe it or the far more commonly expressed version of Christian morality that we must obey to avoid eternal hellfire and gain heaven, both rely on measuring up to externally imposed expectations to gain, or respond to, the mercy of an external arbiter. If people do good works in an acknowledged vain attempt to live up to the impossible standards of Christ's morality as an acknowledgement of his grace and mercy already given to them, or if they do good works to avoid his condemnation to the fiery pit, they still do good works because somebody else is setting the expectation.

That is the morality of a dog. Whether a dog fears the rolled up newspaper or simply wants to please a beloved master by not peeing in the house, the dog is still cleaving to the external deontology of the master. He doesn't think that peeing in the house is a negative act in and of itself. He doesn't understand the work to clean the carpet and think "ah that's a harm caused by my action of peeing. I will avoid that harm by peeing outside."

Far superior is the morality of an autonomous ethical agent. I, surely no moral paragon, need neither divine grace nor the fear of divine wrath to see that killing or raping or robbery cause great harm, and therefore to avoid doing so even when it would likely be with impunity. It is a human, societal morality whereby independent agents know that if A does not cheat B and B does not steal from C then C will not kill A. The vast majority of us live like this, religious or not. Rousseau was a bit of a primitivist, but he had that part right. I've asked religious people quite a few times if they think they personally would go Natural Born Killer if they lost their faith. Every one said no. Every one also acknowledged that atheists of their acquaintance also avoided doing so. That's because absent sociopaths, everybody works this way faith or not. Morality is a human construct for group cohesion. We need laws and authorities of some kind because sociopaths exist. We however don't need gods to make those laws, only human moral agency, which is all that we rely on now really.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #110)

Mon May 16, 2016, 11:39 AM

116. Wow.

God makes rules that condemn us for limits that he created us with. When we break the rules (as we were bound to), we deserve eternal punishment. First off, I don't remember signing up to play this game. Where's my informed consent?

But then we're supposed to be grateful that he set up a special way to avoid the punishment that he assigned because we broke rules that he designed us to be unable to follow?

That's a special kind of f'ed up right there.

I do have to give you some credit though - most liberal believers don't publicly acknowledge this foundation of Christian belief, but here you are proclaiming it proudly. Thank you for being honest and straightforward, I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #9)

Thu May 12, 2016, 11:29 AM

33. Accountability? sigh

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #33)

Thu May 12, 2016, 11:44 AM

34. Remember, despite the ivory tower pronouncements from would-be theologians...

the incredibly vast majority of religious followers hold fast to a very simple theology.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jonno99 (Reply #9)

Thu May 12, 2016, 07:52 PM

78. Some invoke god in an effort to escape accountability.

Right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed May 11, 2016, 06:08 PM

4. Stupidity does not need divine intervention to meet its end.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #4)

Thu May 12, 2016, 10:14 AM

26. No, you can use your Alert button for that.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed May 11, 2016, 06:21 PM

5. God might be busy

at the moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #5)

Wed May 11, 2016, 06:24 PM

6. So this god of yours, the one who said if you dont know me or acknowledge me you cant

go to heaven.

From the day he allegedly lived till now, how many BILLIONS of people lived and died who never heard about him, or were not witnessed to, what happens to them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Reply #6)

Wed May 11, 2016, 06:31 PM

7. Don't tell me. You were a literalist then and you're a literalist now.

 

amirite?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #7)

Wed May 11, 2016, 11:26 PM

11. Which isn't that much different from the RCC's official position

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #11)

Thu May 12, 2016, 06:47 AM

13. The people in here posting about talking snakes are not Catholics.

 

Your reading of the bible has more in common with literalists that the CCC, which does not make the point you were hoping for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #13)

Thu May 12, 2016, 09:30 AM

17. If you can't respond to the point made, feel free to respond to any other you care to make up

Not that I really have to tell you this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #17)

Thu May 12, 2016, 09:31 AM

18. You're close. I made a direct response to a made-up point.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #18)

Thu May 12, 2016, 09:32 AM

19. Sounds like I was spot on then

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #19)

Thu May 12, 2016, 09:33 AM

20. Except as to who was making up points.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #20)

Thu May 12, 2016, 09:39 AM

21. No, I'm pretty sure I got that one right

The poster made an excellent point that pretty much the whole of Christianity has been wrestling with for almost 2,000 years and is still evidently evolving on, but rather than address that or even acknowledge what that point was you make some half-fast snark about literalism and snake charming. So let's just not pretend who is and isn't on point, because such things are obviously childish, but if you want to continue with such nonsense be my guest. You'll just have to look for another playmate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #21)

Thu May 12, 2016, 09:45 AM

23. Afraid not.

 

The poster inadvertently stumbled upon the notion of extra ccclesiam nulla salus which I unkindly insinuated was literalism (most notably espoused by the Feeneyites).

You proceeded to ignore the literalism problem and ineptly linked to the CCC which clearly rejects that literalist view.

Alas,

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #23)

Thu May 12, 2016, 10:04 AM

24. "extra ccclesiam(sic) nulla salus" is still the official RCC position

The only difference from what they have been preaching for almost 2,000 years is they have redefined 'inside the church' to include those who believe and act the same as them. All of this comes from their literal reading of the gospels, as does the mainstream protestant position which is slightly less inclusive.

“Outside the Church there is no salvation” (extra ecclesiam nulla salus) is a doctrine of the Catholic Faith that was taught By Jesus Christ to His Apostles, preached by the Fathers, defined by popes and councils and piously believed by the faithful in every age of the Church.

http://catholicism.org/category/outside-the-church-there-is-no-salvation

So yes, literalism is a problem, but not the one you think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #24)

Thu May 12, 2016, 10:19 AM

28. It is. And literalism blurs its meaning.

 

A la Feeney.

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

Assming you're not engaging in playtime, read Lumen Gentium.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

At least this part, paragrah 16 of Chapter 2:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #28)

Thu May 12, 2016, 10:37 AM

29. You must have missed this part....

The other branch, located in Richmond, New Hampshire, had no official recognition from the Catholic Church before 2010,[8] but professed to be in communion with the Pope.[9] In a move toward reconciliation, in October 2010, the Richmond community announced that Bishop John McCormack of the Diocese of Manchester had granted permission for the group's chapel and appointed an official chaplain for it.[10]


If you want to discuss how the RCC officially sanctions a group the SPLC designates as a hate group, I'm more than happy to have that conversation, but I suspect you don't want to go there.

So you actually give me back the exact same reference I gave you in post 11 and then claim I'm the one who didn't read it after I paraphrased that exact passage in my last post?

Brilliant!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #29)

Thu May 12, 2016, 12:57 PM

39. That odd little sect?

 

Unsurprising you consider it representative of RCC doctrine. Never mind it's not in communion with Rome, for good reason. Anything to advance the narrative, no matter how factually wrong.

BTW, the link you gave was to the Catechism not to the Vatican 2 document. I notice you've shied away from the plain language of Lumen Gentium.

How many things can you get wrong in one thread?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #39)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:13 PM

40. I guess if you're going to be that inept, I'm going to have to leave bigger breadcrumbs

Assming you're not engaging in playtime, read Lumen Gentium.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

At least this part, paragrah 16 of Chapter 2:

Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=228663

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

How many things can you get wrong in one thread?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #40)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:32 PM

44. That's only 36 paragraphs away.

 

You should have known then how wrong post 6 was (assuming you read the right paragraph in the first place) rather than rushing to defend it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #44)

Thu May 12, 2016, 01:53 PM

45. ...and the document you posted was only 8 chapters long

So if you're going to post a lengthy document and direct me to read it, you probably should have first at least browsed through the relevant sections of the one I posted to find the exact same thing, or at least had enough sense to figure out an approved papal decree written over 50 years ago would have been enshrined in the catechism if it actually was the official RCC position. Instead you decide to blame your own fuckups on me. Very telling that.

Post 6 wasn't wrong. As I said, it just isn't that far off from the official RCC position and most certainly is the exact position of mainstream protestant ideology. The other part you fucked up is this:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P29.HTM

Every age of the Church, including this one, has reiterated that position with only a slight refinement just like I posted and provided relevant proof of that assertion. This is the official RCC position, enshrined in the official Catechism of the Catholic Church and derived from a literal reading of the gospel. I suggest you read the whole thing instead of cherry picking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #45)

Thu May 12, 2016, 02:23 PM

49. . . . . and I told you ecaxtly where it is.

 

The difference is I read it before posting it.

BTW, repeating the same words does not cure your literalism problem.

Go back and read what I told you to read.

Your abject deflection and denial is becoming embarrassing to read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #49)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:00 PM

53. You told me exactly what I had already posted

And proceeded to give me a reading list after I had already paraphrased it for you and which you have yet to contradict. So if you want anything softer than that, I'll have to shit in your hand.

You started out with your usual deflection and only got back on track after I called you out for it. Unlike you I stand by my assertions.

If you are so embarrassed, don't read it. Whining incessantly doesn't help your case. I've yet to see you offer anything useful on the subject.

I notice you've shied away from the plain language of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I suspect you'll also do your usual run away and deflection from the real reason behind the Lumen Gentium, which was to deflect charges of anti-semitism on behalf of Catholicism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #53)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:40 PM

59. Although I'm sure you're feigning ignorance, I'll give it to you in teeny pieces.

 

I understand some would rather be regarded a fool than wrong.

Start with this:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

Now, carefully, take this:

"Those also can attain to salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, yet sincerely seek God and moved by grace strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience."

Take the two and chew, slowly. Don't want any choking to occur.

When you're done, answer this question:

"So this god of yours, the one who said if you dont know me or acknowledge me you cantgo to heaven.

From the day he allegedly lived till now, how many BILLIONS of people lived and died who never heard about him, or were not witnessed to, what happens to them?"

That is what started this whole ludicrous subthread, isn't it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #59)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:59 PM

60. You do understand those two statements directly contradict each other, yes?

The reason for the contradiction is the RCC has to both simultaneously support some 18 or 19 centuries of solid exclusionism while simultaneously trying to deflect the reality of how anti-Semitic that ideology is not to mention all the other bigotry with every other competing religion.

Meanwhile you've yet to explain how someone who has never heard about anything of a divine nature is supposed to "sincerely seek God and moved by grace". I suppose we must assume the holy poltergeist whispered in their ear like St. Paul, right?

So yeah, it is getting ludicrous at this point and I'm pretty sure you have everything to do with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #60)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:06 PM

63. Only if you're a simple-minded literalist.

 

Greater minds than yours have tried and have been discredited. Read the rest of Lumen Gentium

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #63)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:15 PM

66. This is funny as shit

First of all 'literalism' in the context of Christianity means biblical literalism, which to those north of a room temperature IQ doesn't even concern the Catechism.

As if that alone wasn't the silliest shit imaginable, you compound it with the suggestion that we can't take the first statement from the Catechism literally, but we MUST take the second one literally!



Meanwhile you've yet to offer anything remotely approaching evidence as to why post #6 is wrong, other than your own personal assurance that it is. Deflection noted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #66)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:21 PM

67. Somehow, I don't think you're amused at all.

 

Anyone familiar with words knows the pitfalls of literalism, be it in constitutional law, psychology, or scripture.

Anyone adept at words can see the latter statement does not contradict, but amplifies, the original statement.

Sorry, I can't find a smiley that adequately demonstrates stunning stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #67)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:38 PM

70. And you're wrong about that too

I absolutely love it when you are reduced to waffling, and now your insistence that biblical literalism is no longer the issue after you made it so. Just WTF were you literally talking about in post #7? I'd LOVE to hear your answer on that, purely for the comedic value.

Here's a smiley that fits pretty well. Enjoy.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #70)

Thu May 12, 2016, 08:02 PM

81. You haven't read the 8th through 375th chapters of St. gish

Many biblical scholars have gone round and round on this and written tomes of writing about the subjects, but theuly don't take any of it literally, not one. They don't even claim God exists!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #13)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:27 PM

55. So Mary was not literally a virgin?

And Jesus never really, actually, literally existed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #55)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:32 PM

56. There is disagreement about the former. No serious dispute about the latter.

 

Before you ask the next usual question, "How do we know which is literal and which isnot?!" - excuse me while I stifle a yawn - read. It's more productive than trolling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #56)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:39 PM

58. The rule is that if it seems obviously false, say...

.. then it has to be called a "spiritual metaphor."

What do you make, by the way, of the Polish bishop who recently declared there was literal heart tissue in a host?

Meanwhile, still no Jesus it seems.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #58)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:01 PM

61. That's a rule embraced only by those who can't be bothered with scriptural scholarship.

 

As to the host (which I'm glad you acknowledge is by the way and irrelevant to this subject) the Bishop did not declare that. The Department of Forensic Medicine of the Pomeranian Medical University in Szczecin did. Technically, their opinion is there is present striated muscle consistent with heart tissue. On that basis the Bishop made the announcement.

As to my opinion, I'm dubious. Mainly for three reasons; first, the sample was studied at the request of the diocese; second, the announcement is timed to coincide with the anniversary of the introduction of Christianity to Poland; third, i haven't seen the report and I've seen no mention online of anyone who has seen it.

As to your implicit question, "Why not because it's preposterous on its face?", the answer is that if there is a God who created all, this would be a simple thing. However, I doubt God has need of parlor tricks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #56)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:02 PM

62. So other than the bible, what exactly would we read?

Are you seriously alleging there's historical proof for the literal Jesus?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #62)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:11 PM

65. Why would you read anything else on the subject? Do you think a geology book would help?

 

And yes, regarding that topic, the weight of scholarship on the existence of Jesus, versus his nonexistence, is as lopsided as the weight of scholarship on climate change versus climate change deniers.. There are always cranks with an agenda.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #65)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:32 PM

68. Why? Because you suggested it maybe?

Let me remind you...

Before you ask the next usual question, "How do we know which is literal and which isnot?!" - excuse me while I stifle a yawn - read. It's more productive than trolling.


We aren't talking about a figure who lived during that time named Jesus who evidently lived and was crucified around the right time, we are talking about the literal Jesus who was born in [strike]Nazareth[/strike], er Bethlehem and who did things like preaching a sermon on the mount, walking on water, healing lepers...you know, that kind of shit.

So I asked you what I should read for evidence of this and you produced exactly squat. Were you just trolling?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #68)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:34 PM

69. Sorry, I have to eat a hamburger.

 

Have fun plying with yoiurself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #69)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:38 PM

71. Deflection noted

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #69)

Thu May 12, 2016, 10:06 PM

82. +1 for being smart enough to know when you're beat and just walk away.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Reply #82)

Thu May 12, 2016, 10:08 PM

83. I'm all done eating, cleanhippie. What have you got to say?

 

If you're talking about this subthread, you're as obtuse on the subject as he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #65)

Thu May 12, 2016, 05:51 PM

72. So on the matter of Jesus, Rug is a literalist

It is claimed that Jesus literally, actually, physically existed.

This is a common claim in the Church.

So, many Catholics are often literalists.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #72)

Thu May 12, 2016, 06:14 PM

73. "It is claimed that Jesus literally, actually, physically existed." by the bulk of scholars.

 

It is incredibly arrogant or irrational to claim otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #72)

Thu May 12, 2016, 06:19 PM

74. That's not really a hard claim to make

Jesus, or rather Yeshua was a very common name at the time, and seeing as how the Romans crucified people wholesale at the time it's no surprise someone by that name was put on the cross.

That is the limit to the historical evidence of Jesus. Evidence for the literal Jesus of the bible is far more suspect. The evidence is 3rd or 4th person at best and even that is a stretch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #74)

Thu May 12, 2016, 07:58 PM

79. No contemporaneous accounts of his life.

No actual written evidence that he lived. He is a composite syncretic figure much like Mithra, Apollo, Horus or Osiris.

Born on December 25th of a virgin, walked on water, performed miracles, raised the dead, yada yada?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Manifestor_of_Light (Reply #79)

Fri May 13, 2016, 01:12 PM

92. Walking on water is often takenliterally by Catholics

The existence of Jesus is taken literally. especially.

So it seems that literalism us often found in Catholicism. And is only wrong, or irrelevant, when Rug says it is.

Expanding on this? Not all Catholics are entirely agreed on when things are literal, and when they are not. As when one Bishop area at once finds literal human body parts in a host, but others don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #92)

Fri May 13, 2016, 02:53 PM

97. Well, the odds are high that when you type something here it is wrong or irrelevant.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #97)

Fri May 13, 2016, 11:51 PM

100. The subtopic: people taking the Bible literally

Do Catholics do it? Often they do.

Does that mean they often embrace silly things? Yes it does.

Related to this: is their whole faith silly? Likely it is.

Talking snakes, walking on water. All belief in literal miracles is silly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #11)

Fri May 13, 2016, 07:04 PM

99. There is an intellectual dishonesty displayed by certain believers who sneer at the "literalism"

 

of other believers they think are naive while they themselves believe in literal nonsense like zombie god-men.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #99)

Sat May 14, 2016, 06:46 AM

102. No, the mockery is directed at antitheists who are wedded to biblical literalism.

 

Without that, their claim to derisive intellectual superiority collapses in a pile of straw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #102)

Sat May 14, 2016, 07:27 AM

103. But many Catholics often do take the Bible literally

Many take most biblical miracles literally, for instance. Walking on water, say.

So the criticism of such religions for believing in false things, is appropriate.

For that matter, as it turns out, the spiritual or metaphorical reading of such things has problems too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #103)

Sat May 14, 2016, 07:35 AM

105. The dishonesty employed isthe claim that it is all literal

 

Followed by the feigned, "How can you tell which is literal and which is not?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #105)

Sat May 14, 2016, 08:42 AM

107. If ANY miracles are taken literally...

... as many Catholics take many - then our believers are open to criticism from Science.

Spirituality also has problems. Including the spirit of "hate"ing your family. As required by Jesus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #107)

Sat May 14, 2016, 08:52 AM

108. No, those specific claims are subject to it.

 

BTW, I thought your schtick was, attack the belief, not the believer. The flip side of hate the sin, love the sinner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #108)

Sat May 14, 2016, 01:56 PM

111. Rug? You defend a modern liberal Catholicism

So here it's necessary to mention people: your modern Catholicism is not embraced by all or traditional Catholics. Many of whom still defend miracles.

You feel that the old belief is today a straw man, and that new Catholicism is more defensible. But first: the new came out of the old. And still shares some responsibility to, and subtle liabilities from, miraculous Catholicism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #111)

Sun May 15, 2016, 12:22 PM

112. the foundational myth is patent horseshit.

 

except for a few christian-atheists they all believe in the absurd zombie-man-god thing. As I said, they just try to gloss over that nonsense while trumpeting their allegedly sophisticated hermeneutics that supposedly explain all the other loopy nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #112)

Sun May 15, 2016, 05:25 PM

113. The only patent horseshit I see is what you just posted.

 

Props for using "hermeneutics" as if it redeems the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #113)

Mon May 16, 2016, 01:38 AM

114. Rug? Do you believe in a resurrected Jesus?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Brettongarcia (Reply #114)

Thu May 19, 2016, 11:56 AM

117. Crickets.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #117)

Sun May 29, 2016, 01:11 AM

120. Resurrection=zombies

Works for me.

The Cajun take on Catholicism really reveals the very primitive, magical, animistic origins of most Catholic and Christian beliefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 10:15 AM

27. The Bible clearly says "Thou shalt not tempt God."

It's illegal to test God's existence with an experiment. The Bible says so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #27)

Thu May 12, 2016, 11:13 AM

31. Someone should tell these guys....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #31)

Thu May 12, 2016, 07:59 PM

80. Darwin beats Christianity in that case.

When the snake handlers get bitten and die from the venom.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #27)

Thu May 12, 2016, 04:32 PM

57. Except in say, Mal. 3.10

"Put me to the test, says the Lord."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DetlefK (Reply #27)

Sat May 14, 2016, 07:35 AM

104. You mean like praying for things?

 

Like pretty much every Xstian has done at one time or another?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Thu May 12, 2016, 11:16 AM

32. Of course, there isn't!

Everywhere you look, there he ain't.

After a while, you just gotta accept it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Fri May 13, 2016, 04:25 PM

98. This poor thread was DOA.

God 1

Jackie Wilson Said 0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to okasha (Reply #98)


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 12:06 AM

101. So one thing I got from religion study classes is...

 

...there are things that are common in all religions if you reach hard enough to force the connections (take that Joseph Campbell)...one of the most common things is that incest is fine the better you are. Pharaohs could inter marry, well most royalty could, gods can and do (Zeus you do know she is your sister right?), many of our origin stories do (Adam was left by his unrelated partner and hooked up with what is basically a clone), oh and Noah and the flood?...I could name many times this theme has appeared all over of brother and sister love... but on the other hand monotheism is one of the least common of beliefs world wide historically, and even in our own versions they still believed in multiple gods...there are stories that the Christian god had a crush on one of the middle-eastern ones back in the day...also ever wondered how the pharoh had his magician makes snakes from a staff as well? If you read early christian literature you will often find mention of other gods...just as other religions did the same..not sure if they called the stories cross-overs at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Sat May 14, 2016, 11:01 AM

109. This thread is conclusive proof that if a God or Gods exist, he, she, it, or they...

 

...don't spend much of his, her, its, or their time moderating internet discussion boards like DU.

Guess we're not as important in the big scheme of things as we thought we were.

Who knew?





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Tue May 24, 2016, 06:19 PM

118. This thread is still alive...

...and kicking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Fri May 27, 2016, 09:19 AM

119. Yeah, there ain't.

There he isn't, and there he isn't, and there he isn't, and there he isn't...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jackie Wilson Said (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:05 PM

121. Still kicken' (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread