Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on October 03, 2015, 11:59:44 AM
-
deleted
-
Another poster stated on another thread that we couldn't have come from nothing, so by the same token nor could the deity. 'He was always there', doesn't cut the mustard, imo!
I must have missed that. Are you mixing up "he was always there" with "he had no beginning"?
-
Another poster stated on another thread that we couldn't have come from nothing, so by the same token nor could the deity. 'He was always there', doesn't cut the mustard, imo!
I must have missed that. Are you mixing up "he was always there" with "he had no beginning"?
And the difference is?
The most logical explanation is that the deity is one of the nastier human creations, with all the worst human faults and failings.
-
...
The most logical explanation is that the deity is one of the nastier human creations, with all the worst human faults and failings.
It's not going to be you just asserting that God is evil, is it? I don't have time for such stuff.
-
t's not going to be you just asserting that God is evil, is it? I don't have time for such stuff.
Odd, you seem to have plenty of time for asserting your god is good.
-
...
The most logical explanation is that the deity is one of the nastier human creations, with all the worst human faults and failings.
It's not going to be you just asserting that God is evil, is it? I don't have time for such stuff.
What is good about it? No one ever seems to be able to answer that question with any credibility! ::)
-
I must have missed that. Are you mixing up "he was always there" with "he had no beginning"?
Can you explain the difference between "always there" and "had no beginning"?
-
Another poster stated on another thread that we couldn't have come from nothing,
If you mean me, what I said was "it is naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing". In other words, matter doesn't arise by natural processes. Yet apparently we have come from nothing. This implies a supernatural origin for matter.
so by the same token nor could the deity. 'He was always there', doesn't cut the mustard, imo!
Time is actually the relative movement of matter.
(Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/matter-forms-space-time-is-relative-motion.39029/)
So, if 'the deity' created matter, then 'it' existed before time.
-
What is good about it? No one ever seems to be able to answer that question with any credibility! ::)
I suppose whose credibility you judge that by. Since you seem to start threads about the same issue every couple of months - on the grounds, I suspect, that you haven't liked the answers you received on the previous threads - I'm not sure that your credibility is anything to judge anyone else's credibility by.
-
Another poster stated on another thread that we couldn't have come from nothing, so by the same token nor could the deity. 'He was always there', doesn't cut the mustard, imo!
I must have missed that. Are you mixing up "he was always there" with "he had no beginning"?
And the difference is?
The most logical explanation is that the deity is one of the nastier human creations, with all the worst human faults and failings.
convince yourself Floo. ;)
Who created the universe? Itself?
-
1. Why do you use the word 'who'? Rather telling that; it implies that for some reason you automatically think in terms of conscious agency. Why would that be?
2. Do we know that the universe was created at all? No, we don't.
-
2. Do we know that the universe was created at all? No, we don't.
If the Big Bang did occur, it would suggest that the universe ddn't come into being in and of its own action. That would then suggest that, in the fundamental sense of the term - 'create' - that something occurred outside of the influence of what we now refer to as 'the universe'.
-
Another poster stated on another thread that we couldn't have come from nothing, so by the same token nor could the deity. 'He was always there', doesn't cut the mustard, imo!
I must have missed that. Are you mixing up "he was always there" with "he had no beginning"?
And the difference is?
The most logical explanation is that the deity is one of the nastier human creations, with all the worst human faults and failings.
convince yourself Floo. ;)
Who created the universe? Itself?
I don't know what (not who) created the universe and neither do you.
-
Another poster stated on another thread that we couldn't have come from nothing, so by the same token nor could the deity. 'He was always there', doesn't cut the mustard, imo!
I must have missed that. Are you mixing up "he was always there" with "he had no beginning"?
And the difference is?
The most logical explanation is that the deity is one of the nastier human creations, with all the worst human faults and failings.
convince yourself Floo. ;)
Who created the universe? Itself?
I am sure the explanation will be found one day, and I bet when it is no deity will be involved.
-
2. Do we know that the universe was created at all? No, we don't.
If the Big Bang did occur, it would suggest that the universe ddn't come into being in and of its own action. That would then suggest that, in the fundamental sense of the term - 'create' - that something occurred outside of the influence of what we now refer to as 'the universe'.
Good luck extracting a god out of that ;)
-
Another poster stated on another thread that we couldn't have come from nothing, so by the same token nor could the deity. 'He was always there', doesn't cut the mustard, imo!
I must have missed that. Are you mixing up "he was always there" with "he had no beginning"?
And the difference is?
The most logical explanation is that the deity is one of the nastier human creations, with all the worst human faults and failings.
convince yourself Floo. ;)
Who created the universe? Itself?
I am sure the explanation will be found one day, and I bet when it is no deity will be involved.
Such faith! ;D
-
Another poster stated on another thread that we couldn't have come from nothing, so by the same token nor could the deity. 'He was always there', doesn't cut the mustard, imo!
I must have missed that. Are you mixing up "he was always there" with "he had no beginning"?
And the difference is?
The most logical explanation is that the deity is one of the nastier human creations, with all the worst human faults and failings.
convince yourself Floo. ;)
Who created the universe? Itself?
I am sure the explanation will be found one day, and I bet when it is no deity will be involved.
Such faith! ;D
Suggest you look up the definition of faith.
-
Another poster stated on another thread that we couldn't have come from nothing, so by the same token nor could the deity. 'He was always there', doesn't cut the mustard, imo!
I must have missed that. Are you mixing up "he was always there" with "he had no beginning"?
And the difference is?
The most logical explanation is that the deity is one of the nastier human creations, with all the worst human faults and failings.
convince yourself Floo. ;)
Who created the universe? Itself?
I am sure the explanation will be found one day, and I bet when it is no deity will be involved.
Such faith! ;D
I have much more faith in science and human ingenuity than I have in religion. If humans had waited for the flipping deity to lend a hand we would still be sitting on the edge of the primeval swamp!
-
If you mean me, what I said was "it is naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing". In other words, matter doesn't arise by natural processes. Yet apparently we have come from nothing. This implies a supernatural origin for matter.
Only if we were to accept your assertion that 'it's naturally impossible for matter to arise from nothing' as valid - it isn't.
The point raised is still valid, though - if we were to accept the contention that matter can't arise from nothing, and to accept another commonly posited contention of reality-deniers that 'complex information can't emerge without a guide' then how do you explain the complex entity posited in the form of gods?
O.
-
Doesn't sound to me like we have all the facts anyway !!! ::)
Then again, would we understand it all if we did?? ??? ???
Are we cavemen grunting in front of a laptop ?!?!!?!? ;)
Nick
-
Doesn't sound to me like we have all the facts anyway !!! ::)
Then again, would be understand it all if we did?? ??? ???
Are we cavemen grunting in front of a laptop ?!?!!?!? ;)
Nick
Good questions. Is it OK if I quote you in a discussion elsewhere on objective morality?
-
Of course you may. As long as it's 'good' !?!?! ;) ;D
Please send me links of these discussions.
Nick
-
I can't believe your nerve floo. If God is as bad as you think and just a nasty creation of man, then who was this Lord you thanked and prayed to when you penned and put on the internet, that grandma's prayer of yours?
-
Of course you may. As long as it's 'good' !?!?! ;) ;D
Please send me links of these discussions.
Nick
Shall do.
-
I am bumping this topic up again as it has been mentioned a few times on another thread.
-
I am bumping this topic up again as it has been mentioned a few times on another thread.
If it is already being spoken about on another thread, why does this need bumping up?
Why two threads for the same thing. Or do you mean you wanted to suggest you asked the question first so people should discuss it on your thread? Come on be honest what other purpose could there be?
-
If it is already being spoken about on another thread, why does this need bumping up?
Why two threads for the same thing. Or do you mean you wanted to suggest you asked the question first so people should discuss it on your thread? Come on be honest what other purpose could there be?
It was off topic on the other thread, that is why!
-
I will try bumping this topic up again, more in hope than expectation of a sensible answer to the question of who created god if it exists.
-
I will try bumping this topic up again, more in hope than expectation of a sensible answer to the question of who created god if it exists.
1: We don't know.
2: He has always existed.
-
1: We don't know.
2: He has always existed.
We don't know is reasonable, he always existed isn't!
-
We don't know is reasonable, he always existed isn't!
Alright, have it your way then ..... She has always existed. ;)
-
Alright, have it your way then ..... She has always existed. ;)
;D
-
I will try bumping this topic up again, more in hope than expectation of a sensible answer to the question of who created god if it exists.
The premise for your question is flawed. I can't blame you, as Richard Dawkins makes the same mistake in The God Delusion.
The question has been answered, so there's nothing I can add that hasn't already been said...
-
The premise for your question is flawed. I can't blame you, as Richard Dawkins makes the same mistake in The God Delusion.
The question has been answered, so there's nothing I can add that hasn't already been said...
Why is floored, what is the answer to the question?
-
Sword,
The premise for your question is flawed. I can't blame you, as Richard Dawkins makes the same mistake in The God Delusion.
No he doesn't. Stop lying.
The question has been answered, so there's nothing I can add that hasn't already been said...
No it hasn't. Stop lying.
-
We don't know is reasonable, he always existed isn't!
Of course it is.
-
No he doesn't. Stop lying.
Yes he does! His infinite regression argument at the end of Chapter 3 of The God Delusion where he assumes that not only that God was created, but that most thinking people find the answer for themselves regarding the question of "Who created God"
-
The question has been answered, so there's nothing I can add that hasn't already been said...
No it hasn't. Stop lying.
Floo dismissed an aspect of the answer in her opening post, lol!
The first response:
I must have missed that. Are you mixing up "he was always there" with "he had no beginning"?
He had no beginning! Bingo!! Only that which has a beginning needs a cause.
There are more answers, see e.g. this page.
Not liking the answer doesn't mean the question hasn't been answered.
If you are going to keep up this tactic of yours of asking questions then denying people the tools to answer them, I will have to keep on exposing it.
-
Sword,
Yes he does! His infinite regression argument at the end of Chapter 3 of The God Delusion where he assumes that not only that God was created, but that most thinking people find the answer for themselves regarding the question of "Who created God"
But your claim was that RD makes a mistake. You've yet to demonstrate that mistake.
Floo dismissed an aspect of the answer in her opening post, lol!
Because it's not an answer - it's just special pleading.
He had no beginning! Bingo!! Only that which has a beginning needs a cause.
"He had no beginning" is just an assertion. You may as well say the "the universe" had no beginning and apply Occam's razor.
Not liking the answer doesn't mean the question hasn't been answered.
That's not what's happened.
If you are going to keep up this tactic of yours of asking questions then denying people the tools to answer them, I will have to keep on exposing it.
There is no such tactic. If you want to attempt answers that are fallacious, you must expect them to be falsified.
-
Of course it is.
If you mean it is reasonable to say god always existed, explain why?
-
The first response:He had no beginning! Bingo!! Only that which has a beginning needs a cause.
This is a reference to the KCA which is, of course, fallacious - so I can see why it might appeal to you.
If you are going to keep up this tactic of yours of asking questions then denying people the tools to answer them, I will have to keep on exposing it.
Given your success to date I doubt it, though you will undoubtedly fool yourself in the attempt since you seem insightless regarding your repeated use of fallacies.
-
Floo dismissed an aspect of the answer in her opening post, lol!
The first response:He had no beginning! Bingo!! Only that which has a beginning needs a cause.
There are more answers, see e.g. this page.
Not liking the answer doesn't mean the question hasn't been answered.
If you are going to keep up this tactic of yours of asking questions then denying people the tools to answer them, I will have to keep on exposing it.
What does that mean, 'he had no beginning'? That is no sort of explanation! ::)
-
Perhaps Sword and the deity are inextricably linked in some kind of quantum entanglement, yeah ,that'll be it ::)
-
Why is this thread in the 'Christian Topic' area? I have no idea who created Floo's deity, but as it clearly isn't the Christian God, shouldn't this be somewhere else?
-
I will try bumping this topic up again, more in hope than expectation of a sensible answer to the question of who created god if it exists.
What do you mean by 'a sensible answer', Floo? One that you accept as fitting your understanding? In view of the number of times you have dismissed eminently 'sensible answers' to questions you've posed because they don't fit your thinking, I can't think why anyone should bother with this thread.
-
Well pardon me , I didn't realise Christians had their own god. I thought god was everyone's god. well what do I know?
-
Alright, have it your way then ..... She has always existed. ;)
That is a step in the right direction, but not, of course, if you happen to be Christian.
-
I don't mind God being called, "She". The fact that Jesus referred to God as his father merely reflects the patriarchal culture into which he was born. God is a spirit and is neither male nor female so "She" is perfectly acceptable.
-
Aww Brownie
I wish you'd tell me how you know all this and I don't.
-
Aww Brownie
I wish you'd tell me how you know all this and I don't.
You don't know all what?
-
I don't mind God being called, "She". The fact that Jesus referred to God as his father merely reflects the patriarchal culture into which he was born. God is a spirit and is neither male nor female so "She" is perfectly acceptable.
But surely 'it' would make more sense in that case.
-
What do you mean by 'a sensible answer', Floo? One that you accept as fitting your understanding? In view of the number of times you have dismissed eminently 'sensible answers' to questions you've posed because they don't fit your thinking, I can't think why anyone should bother with this thread.
God was always there, isn't a sensible answer, imo!
-
God was always there, isn't a sensible answer, imo!
But you have no problem with the universe having been always there?
-
But you have no problem with the universe having been always there?
The universe hasn't always been there, it evolved? I don't know how it came into being, but maybe one day science with provide the answer backed up by evidence.
-
what she said in 47
-
The universe hasn't always been there, it evolved? I don't know how it came into being, but maybe one day science with provide the answer backed up by evidence.
science, especially physics will provide answers to all our questions, eventually.
-
It isn't acceptable, WALTER,
TO CALL God a she. Nor does any scientist, believe science especially physics will provide an answer to all questions.
But there are many people including scientist who believe God is the answer to everything.
-
It isn't acceptable, WALTER,
TO CALL God a she. Nor does any scientist, believe science especially physics will provide an answer to all questions.
But there are many people including scientist who believe God is the answer to everything.
But they would be wrong then.
-
But they would be wrong then.
But you have no proof of that do you? You mean you have a double standard. You and those like you who place their hope/faith in science.
If scientist say one thing which agrees with your belief it is right.
If scientist say something which disagrees with your belief they are wrong.
How does confusion give credence to either belief?
God a solid foundation he never changes his mind about anything in that what he says remains.
Do you think human elements are at play in your beliefs and cherry picking?
-
Sassy
I have NO BELIEFS in this context
-
Sassy
God a solid foundation he never changes his mind about anything in that what he says remains.
So your god still condones slavery although we now think it is wrong?
-
Sassy
So your god still condones slavery although we now think it is wrong?
"WE" don't though.........what about modern slavery?
You still have a quaint belief in secular progress.
-
But surely 'it' would make more sense in that case.
When you put it like that, Trent, I suppose it does. However, calling God "It" irks many people, they feel it is said, not to be precise but to be disrespectful. It's unkind to use terms that hurt people when there is no good reason for it.
It (no pun) doesn't bother me now, I vaguely remember it did some time ago but not now. So there's no reason why someone doesn't say (or write), "god" with a small g, or "the deity".
However what you say does make sense so I will not criticise the use of "It" now.
I reiterate what I said previously, God is a spirit and has no gender so, strictly speaking, no reason why he/she/it cannot be called "She", in my opinion. If someone comes up with a reason not to I'm prepared to listen. I use masculine terms for God because I'm used to doing so, Jesus did (for reasons already given), and I like the "father figure"; however, "mother figure" is equally as important. Some non-Christian religions seriously revere a mother god and no-one finds that odd.
-
Do you agree with slavery and think it is fine.
I do not think slavery is moral, but your god does.
-
It isn't acceptable, WALTER,
TO CALL God a she. Nor does any scientist, believe science especially physics will provide an answer to all questions.
But there are many people including scientist who believe God is the answer to everything.
If god exists why shouldn't it be a she? However, it is more likely to be genderless.
I doubt many mainstream scientists, if any, think god is the answer to everything.
-
Do you agree with slavery and think it is fine.
I do not think slavery is moral, but your god does.
I disagree with modern slavery but am aware that it has increased along with secularisation in this country. I have never kept slaves and don't intend to since it is not fine.
-
I disagree with modern slavery but am aware that it has increased along with secularisation in this country. I have never kept slaves and don't intend to since it is not fine.
But your god thinks owning slaves is fine and condones it in the bible.
You are your god disagree on the owning of people.
-
If god exists why shouldn't it be a she? However, it is more likely to be genderless.
I doubt many mainstream scientists, if any, think god is the answer to everything.
Small selection of living Christian mainstream scientists
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Arber
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_J._Ayala
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_(geneticist)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Heap
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noella_Marcellino
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Conway_Morris
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kobilka
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guy_Consolmagno
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michał_Heller
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Richard_Gott
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Humphreys
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Pinsent
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Stannard
-
They might be religious but it doesn't say what their take is on how the universe was formed does it, unless I have missed something?
-
But your god thinks owning slaves is fine and condones it in the bible.
You are your god disagree on the owning of people.
But that is not an exclusive view.
Slavery is a feature of the Middle East in OT times.It cannot therefore be said as you are saying to be instituted by God.
Out of this though we find the deutoronomic code whereby the people of Isreal are commanded not to hand over fugitive slaves.
In the NT there are injunctions on people to stay in their places but their are many references about God not considering people as slaves, whatever their station.
After the New Testament some Christians are pro slavery but then so we're some free thinkers vis Thomas Jefferson.
Aquinus views slavery as part of post fall sin.
Modern secularist slavers obviously view it in modern secular acquisitive materialist terms I e in modern secular society the consequences are worth the risk. There is evidence too that forms of debt bondage will become acceptable in secular society.
-
But that is not an exclusive view.
Slavery is a feature of the Middle East in OT times.It cannot therefore be said as you are saying to be instituted by God.
Out of this though we find the deutoronomic code whereby the people of Isreal are commanded not to hand over fugitive slaves.
In the NT there are injunctions on people to stay in their places but their are many references about God not considering people as slaves, whatever their station.
After the New Testament some Christians are pro slavery but then so we're some free thinkers vis Thomas Jefferson.
Aquinus views slavery as part of post fall sin.
Modern secularist slavers obviously view it in modern secular acquisitive materialist terms I e in modern secular society the consequences are worth the risk. There is evidence too that forms of debt bondage will become acceptable in secular society.
Your god condoned it, he approves of it.
We do not agree with your god on the morality of owning another human being.
So we are more moral than your god.
-
They might be religious but it doesn't say what their take on how the universe was formed does it, unless I have missed something?
if they are Christian they believe in a creator God
-
Your god condoned it, he approves of it.
We do not agree with your god on the morality of owning another human being.
So we are more moral than your god.
We know God allows behaviour he disapproves of and which will receive full judgment in due course.
As for a human assessment of your morality......I'm afraid we only have your Sheldon Cooper like act on the Internet to go on.
-
We know God allows behaviour he disapproves of and which will receive full judgment in due course.
As for a human assessment of your morality......I'm afraid we only have your Sheldon Cooper like act on the Internet to go on.
He does not say in the bible that he does not approve of it. He condones it which indicates he approves of it.
He was quick to specify some things he did not approve of with commandments, but slavery and one human owning another was not one of them.
The bible simply has the morality prevailing at the time, almost like it was made up by the people of the time.
We are more moral than your god.
-
He does not say in the bible that he does not approve of it. He condones it which indicates he approves of it.
He was quick to specify some things he did not approve of with commandments, but slavery and one human owning another was not one of them.
The bible simply has the morality prevailing at the time, almost like it was made up by the people of the time.
We are more moral than your god.
Read what I wrote regarding the NT regarding slavery and the deuteronomic code.
No the bible has the NT statements and the deutoronomic code regarding fugitive slaves these are radical viewpoints in the prevailing economy driven world.
Modern slavery seems to have increased with modern secularism.
Your antislavery is rooted in Wilberforcian Christianity. The more you repudiate that the more prone the secularist becomes to modern trends.
-
#55
The universe hasn't always been there, it evolved? I don't know how it came into being, but maybe one day science with provide the answer backed up by evidence.
science, especially physics will provide answers to all our questions, eventually.
I'm interested in how you know this.
If this is a statement of fact, please present your proof below.
Alternatively, if this is your belief (hence where your faith lies), would it be correct to say that your stance is that all causes have natural explanations, known or unknown?
-
I disagree with modern slavery but am aware that it has increased along with secularisation in this country.
Do you have any evidence of those two things being linked? OT of course but ...
-
Sword
everything we know about the nature of the universe has come about by scientific endeavour. There are various faculties within the umbrella word 'science' working on different subjects. All the findings of those will be explained by physics.
If you know of any other way tell us all now.
-
Do you have any evidence of those two things being linked? OT of course but ...
I merely put it out to counter the innuendo which Be Rational has promoted.
It was once easy meat for an antitheist to conjur up slavery against religion and for the idea that now we are secular such things can no longer see the light of day.
With modern slavery, that line has been blown out of the water.
That deprivation and slavery have grown at a pace similar to secularisation is obvious, surely.
-
Read what I wrote regarding the NT regarding slavery and the deuteronomic code.
No the bible has the NT statements and the deutoronomic code regarding fugitive slaves these are radical viewpoints in the prevailing economy driven world.
Modern slavery seems to have increased with modern secularism.
Your antislavery is rooted in Wilberforcian Christianity. The more you repudiate that the more prone the secularist becomes to modern trends.
There is no slavery in the UK.
Slavery is illegal because we think it is morally wrong.
Your god does not
-
if they are Christian they believe in a creator God
Hmmmmmm, not every Christian is a Biblical literalist as I know for a fact!
-
There is no slavery in the UK.
Slavery is illegal because we think it is morally wrong.
Your god does not
You are denying modern slavery is going on then.
It is illegal because of Wilberforcian Christianity.
-
There is no slavery in the UK.
Slavery is illegal because we think it is morally wrong.
Your god does not
Unfortunately you are wrong, some people, often illegal migrants, are being treated as slaves by their employers here in the UK. >:(
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/29/13000-slaves-uk-four-times-higher-previously-thought
-
I merely put it out to counter the innuendo which Be Rational has promoted.
It was once easy meat for an antitheist to conjur up slavery against religion and for the idea that now we are secular such things can no longer see the light of day.
With modern slavery, that line has been blown out of the water.
Is that actually the line? I've not noticed anyone claim that secularism would reduce slavery. The usual omment about religion and slavery is surely that religions were seen to support the idea of slavery at some point.
That deprivation and slavery have grown at a pace similar to secularisation is obvious, surely.
Doesn't mean that they are linked. Many things have grown at a similar pace - such as radical religious beliefs for example - are they linked?
-
Why bring up slavery whats that got to do with who created the deity?
-
I agree it is off topic, and maybe should be the subject of another thread.
-
Why bring up slavery whats that got to do with who created the deity?
Because the morals on slavery match the current thinking of the time, hence when they made up their god, naturally it agreed with and endorsed the current moral thinking.
If the morality of the god was vastly different, then that would have been interesting, but it isn't.
-
heheheheh nope , me neither
-
Hmmmmmm, not every Christian is a Biblical literalist as I know for a fact!
they don't have to be. But they all believe in a creator God.
-
Both piracy and ice-cream consumption have increased. Find the link!
-
Because the morals on slavery match the current thinking of the time, hence when they made up their god, naturally it agreed with and endorsed the current moral thinking.
If the morality of the god was vastly different, then that would have been interesting, but it isn't.
But the problem with your thesis includes your vantage point. I.e. The economic system.
Secondly you are equating the economic system with the Christian religion. Whereas it is a universal way of economic and social life.
Thirdly you completely ignore that the Christian view was to have its adherents witness the faith in the social situations they found themselves in slave owners who were converted Christians were to treat their slaves as brothers and extend basic Christian courtesy. Slave Christians were encouraged to show Christian dignity. The spiritual power given to the Christian was therefore to promote a Christian revolution rather than a socio economic one as had been tried by Spartacus and yes, manumission ideas were abroad in Christianity at the time.
-
But the problem with your thesis includes your vantage point. I.e. The economic system.
Secondly you are equating the economic system with the Christian religion. Whereas it is a universal way of economic and social life.
Thirdly you completely ignore that the Christian view was to have its adherents witness the faith in the social situations they found themselves in slave owners who were converted Christians were to treat their slaves as brothers and extend basic Christian courtesy. Slave Christians were encouraged to show Christian dignity. The spiritual power given to the Christian was therefore to promote a Christian revolution rather than a socio economic one as had been tried by Spartacus and yes, manumission ideas were abroad in Christianity at the time.
Your god condoned slavery.
It was happy to make lots of other rules, why not condemn slavery.
You are evading the issue.
Why did your god condone rather then condemn. Does this not at least give you pause for thought?
-
Both piracy and ice-cream consumption have increased. Find the link!
We know secular ice cream eating is a byword for all kinds of depravity.
-
We know secular ice cream eating is a byword for all kinds of depravity.
Incidents of crime are higher where there are more churches, with a good correlation.
But are churches the cause? No.
-
Your god condoned slavery.
It was happy to make lots of other rules, why not condemn slavery.
You are evading the issue.
Why did your god condone rather then condemn. Does this not at least give you pause for thought?
No you are evading the issue of secular modern slavery.
-
No you are evading the issue of secular modern slavery.
There is no slavery in the UK.
It has been abolished, you are confusing terms.
Find a slave in the UK
-
Churches sometimes have high steeples, I know, I've seen them.
-
Churches sometimes have high steeples, I know, I've seen them.
But what is the link between crime and churches?
Population.
-
There is a wealth of information on the internet regarding translation and definition of the word, "Slave", as used in the Bible, giving background and context, if anyone cares to have a look. I was going to post extracts and links but there are so many of them I leave it up to fellow posters to decide if they are sufficiently interested.
Another word is "Eternal", as it is applied to God, but I don't think the definitions given would answer the questions posed here.
I've just seen a couple of recent posts. There is slavery here in the UK, even though it is illegal. Young people 'shipped' here with the promise of work and made to work as prostitutes, badly treated if they object, closely guarded. Children brought to the UK from other countries to be servants to relatively well off people, again not well looked after, not allowed to go to school or go out and often cruelly punished for the slightest thing. These practices, and others, are outlawed but they happen.
Link between churches and crime in cities is that they are often in deprived areas where criminal activity is high anyway. That's why most churches are locked up like Fort Knox most of the time but there are still break-ins and things stolen.
-
No you are evading the issue of secular modern slavery.
ANd you're linking secularism and modern slavery as if one is the result of the other without any evidence to support that.
Lets have a new thread on this as defo OT.
-
There is a wealth of information on the internet regarding translation and definition of the word, "Slave", as used in the Bible, giving background and context, if anyone cares to have a look. I was going to post extracts and links but there are so many of them I leave it up to fellow posters to decide if they are sufficiently interested.
Another word is "Eternal", as it is applied to God, but I don't think the definitions given would answer the questions posed here.
I've just seen a couple of recent posts. There is slavery here in the UK, even though it is illegal. Young people 'shipped' here with the promise of work and made to work as prostitutes, badly treated if they object, closely guarded. Children brought to the UK from other countries to be servants to relatively well off people, again not well looked after, not allowed to go to school or go out and often cruelly punished for the slightest thing. These practices, and others, are outlawed but they happen.
Link between churches and crime in cities is that they are often in deprived areas where criminal activity is high anyway. That's why most churches are locked up like Fort Knox most of the time but there are still break-ins and things stolen.
Does anyone know where British Humanist or National secularist offices are based? Did they ever have any mission which would have brought them into deprived areas. I know Marxists did in the twenties to fifties but well healed humanists?
-
Have started a thread on religion board.
-
You are denying modern slavery is going on then.
It is illegal because of Wilberforcian Christianity.
There is no slavery in the UK.
-
Hmmmmmm, not every Christian is a Biblical literalist as I know for a fact!
What do they believe then if not that God created everything?
-
There is no slavery in the UK.
Why do assert that when it is a proven fact that some people are being used as slaves here in the UK?
-
What do they believe then if not that God created everything?
They like the good things attributed to Christianity. There are a few clergy who don't believe god exists. I know of one rector, in particular, who stated that he didn't believe in god, a year ago, to a gobsmacked congregation! He still continues as a priest even though the high ups in the Anglican church know his views!
-
They like the good things attributed to Christianity. There are a few clergy who don't believe god exists. I know of one rector, in particular, who stated that he didn't believe in god, a year ago, to a gobsmacked congregation! He still continues as a priest even though the high ups in the Anglican church know his views!
Did he take any questions on why he still wears his collar back to front?
-
They like the good things attributed to Christianity. There are a few clergy who don't believe god exists. I know of one rector, in particular, who stated that he didn't believe in god, a year ago, to a gobsmacked congregation! He still continues as a priest even though the high ups in the Anglican church know his views!
Not a Christian then.
-
There is no slavery in the UK.
If that is the case, why was this case even in court, BR?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-36332024
http://bit.ly/247fxw1
Or why are there academic articles like this one:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2015.00824.x/full
Similarly, why is there the list of anti-slavery/anti-trafficking organisations on the Evangelical Association's website?
http://www.eauk.org/current-affairs/politics/modern-slavery/anti-slavery-groups.cfm
-
They like the good things attributed to Christianity. There are a few clergy who don't believe god exists. I know of one rector, in particular, who stated that he didn't believe in god, a year ago, to a gobsmacked congregation! He still continues as a priest even though the high ups in the Anglican church know his views!
The problem is that there is no church mechanism for 'defrocking' (ie: rescinding the ordination of) such a person. Ironically, this isn't a 21st century phenomenon - its been happening for centuries.
-
If that is the case, why was this case even in court, BR?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-36332024
http://bit.ly/247fxw1
Or why are there academic articles like this one:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2015.00824.x/full
Similarly, why is there the list of anti-slavery/anti-trafficking organisations on the Evangelical Association's website?
http://www.eauk.org/current-affairs/politics/modern-slavery/anti-slavery-groups.cfm
There's a new thread for the slavery discussion Hope.
-
Not a Christian then.
Christian is a very broad term which covers a multitude of sins, some much worse than others!
-
Christian is a very broad term which covers a multitude of sins, some much worse than others!
?
-
Sassy
I have NO BELIEFS in this context
Re: Who created the deity?
« Reply #56 on: October 28, 2016, 09:11:33 AM »
It isn't acceptable, WALTER,
TO CALL God a she. Nor does any scientist, believe science especially physics will provide an answer to all questions.
But there are many people including scientist who believe God is the answer to everything.
Quote from: Walter on October 28, 2016, 09:20:06 AM
But they would be wrong then.
You said they would be wrong... so you clearly have beliefs whether negative or positive.
So clearly you do have beliefs what you do not have is any answers to sustain the things you speak out about.
So stop making one line statements which actually show you are running away and not facing the truth.
Should stop being a silly Billy and stop pretending you have actually doing anything but making up replies as you go along. You got caught out this time.
-
You said they would be wrong... so you clearly have beliefs whether negative or positive.
So clearly you do have beliefs what you do not have is any answers to sustain the things you speak out about.
So stop making one line statements which actually show you are running away and not facing the truth.
Should stop being a silly Billy and stop pretending you have actually doing anything but making up replies as you go along. You got caught out this time.
[/b][/i][/u]
Like you do, do you mean! ;D ;D ;D
-
Christian is a very broad term which covers a multitude of sins, some much worse than others!
Believing in God and the divinity of Jesus is surely retty fundamental to being a Christian. People may like to consider themselves christian (small c) but that doesn't mean they are.
-
Sassy
is English your first language?
-
Believing in God and the divinity of Jesus is surely retty fundamental to being a Christian. People may like to consider themselves christian (small c) but that doesn't mean they are.
If you think you are a Christian you are, the definition is as long as a piece of string, as it is a purely human concept, imo.
-
Floo, you didn't need to put 'imo' at the end of that sentence.
-
Why do assert that when it is a proven fact that some people are being used as slaves here in the UK?
That cannot be as it is illegal.
Do you know of slavery anywhere in the UK.
Please do not redefine slave.
A slave is where one human becones the property of another
-
If that is the case, why was this case even in court, BR?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wales-36332024
http://bit.ly/247fxw1
Or why are there academic articles like this one:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2015.00824.x/full
Similarly, why is there the list of anti-slavery/anti-trafficking organisations on the Evangelical Association's website?
http://www.eauk.org/current-affairs/politics/modern-slavery/anti-slavery-groups.cfm
Slavery s illegal tell the police and it will stop immediately.
-
That cannot be as it is illegal.
By that token then there cannot be any crime in the UK since it is illegal.
-
By that token then there cannot be any crime in the UK since it is illegal.
Slavery is condoned by your God and made illegal by our secular society.
Who do you agree with?
-
If you think you are a Christian you are, the definition is as long as a piece of string, as it is a purely human concept, imo.
Don't agree.
-
Don't agree.
well you'd be wrong then
-
well you'd be wrong then
And where is the evidence for your assertion, Walter? After all, even Jesus points out that there will be some who regard themselves as his followers who he won't recognise.
-
Are you referring to that mythical character in that old book?
-
well you'd be wrong then
Would you like to break your posting habit to date and actually put forward some sort of argument or engage in a discussion on this? Is written more than a 'one liner' too much for you to 'bothered with'?
-
I was responding to your two word one liner Maeght
-
I was responding to your two word one liner Maeght
Maeght didn't agree with what Floo wrote, which says or implies nothing about whether what Floo was right or wrong.
You however said that Maeght was wrong, which is rather more definitive. I'm one of those who would like to know why.
-
Slavery is condoned by your God and made illegal by our secular society.
Who do you agree with?
You've yet to demonstrate that God condones slavery so far it is mere assertion on your part. You also have to demonstrate that when it was made illegal in 1833 the UK was a secular society since it certainly wasn't our (yours and mine) secular society which seems to have increasing slavery.....
-
SOTS
because Floo made a perfectly good comment.
If you think shes wrong its up to you to provide the evidence to support your claims, not me
-
because Floo made a perfectly good comment.
Why is it a perfectly good comment?
-
SOTS
because Floo made a perfectly good comment.
If you think shes wrong its up to you to provide the evidence to support your claims, not me
Because it's from an atheocentric point of view Walter and kind of gives atheists an image of being ignorant of the finer points of anything...you know, the Alf Garnett kind of atheism.
-
thanks for that I've gone all shy now
-
OKAY, VLAD and SWORD
lets stop with 'discussion' just tell us the answer to 'Who created the deity.
off you go....
-
I was responding to your two word one liner Maeght
Another one liner. No expansion, discussion or contribution. You said you'd been reading posts on here for around a year and have only just decided to post. Didn't you come up with anything to contribute in that time beyond one liners?
-
OKAY, VLAD and SWORD
lets stop with 'discussion' just tell us the answer to 'Who created the deity.
off you go....
Did anyone have to create him, Walter?
-
OKAY, VLAD and SWORD
lets stop with 'discussion' just tell us the answer to 'Who created the deity.
off you go....
Vassler, I've already put forward two answers 1) We don't know and 2) He has been around for ever.
-
OKAY, VLAD and SWORD
lets stop with 'discussion' just tell us the answer to 'Who created the deity.
off you go....
So can the existence of God as per the Bible be assumed?
If not, the question is meaningless.
If so, God is eternal, i.e. without beginning or end, therefore not created.
-
Another one liner. No expansion, discussion or contribution. You said you'd been reading posts on here for around a year and have only just decided to post. Didn't you come up with anything to contribute in that time beyond one liners?
this is the Christin Topic section. I came here to find out why there are Christians because the whole thing makes no sense to me.
I am familiar with what you believe but I don't know why. I was hoping somebody could tell me. Up to now I'm non the wiser.
thank you
-
Believing in God and the divinity of Jesus is surely retty fundamental to being a Christian. People may like to consider themselves christian (small c) but that doesn't mean they are.
Ah! You've met a true Scotsman, then? The divinity of Jesus question being fundamental or not has a long history, via Arius, the Unitarians, the Christadelphians and present-day Jehovah's Witnesses (all these of course not believing Jesus to be divine). However, they have considered Jesus in some sense of supreme importance, so if they want to call themselves Christian, I for one don't care (especially if they're people of the stature of Albert Schweitzer, who certainly wouldn't fit your criteria). There are doctrinal anal-retentives in all camps.
As for believing in 'God' - that's such an indefinable can of worms, but I suppose believing in some sort of creative force might be a minimum, but the Sea of Faith people think otherwise, and who am I to gainsay them?
-
this is the Christin Topic section. I came here to find out why there are Christians because the whole thing makes no sense to me.
I am familiar with what you believe but I don't know why. I was hoping somebody could tell me. Up to now I'm non the wiser.
thank you
If you really are interested in finding out why believers believe what they do then asking questions and engaging in discussions would be a good idea. I haven't seen any of that to date. You're clearly not familiar with what I believe either by the way.
-
tanks Dicky that's a start, anyway.
-
this is the Christin Topic section. I came here to find out why there are Christians because the whole thing makes no sense to me.
I am familiar with what you believe but I don't know why. I was hoping somebody could tell me. Up to now I'm non the wiser.
thank you
In addition to what Maeght said in #142, perhaps also consider starting a thread on the subject?
-
If you really are interested in finding out why believers believe what they do then asking questions and engaging in discussions would be a good idea. I haven't seen any of that to date. You're clearly not familiar with what I believe either by the way.
We do however know that you consider it necessary to believe Jesus was and is divine, to be called a Christian.
-
We do however know that you consider it necessary to believe Jesus was and is divine, to be called a Christian.
I'm suggesting it is - but if someone wants to make a good argument as to why that isn't the case I'm open to that.
-
If you really are interested in finding out why believers believe what they do then asking questions and engaging in discussions would be a good idea. I haven't seen any of that to date. You're clearly not familiar with what I believe either by the way.
why anybody believes anything without evidence is totally alien to me. and I have no idea what you believe but the fact you have a belief at all seriously compromises my willingness to engage in any discussion about it. What I want to know is why you believe at all.
-
why anybody believes anything without evidence is totally alien to me. and I have no idea what you believe but the fact you have a belief at all seriously compromises my willingness to engage in any discussion about it. What I want to know is why you believe at all.
What do you think I believe?
-
I'm suggesting it is - but if someone wants to make a good argument as to why that isn't the case I'm open to that.
Maybe someone should open a thread on the Arian heresy :) It won't be me, though I do know something about it - certainly more than Floo, who last time I mentioned it thought I was referring to the other word spelt with a Y and associated with crazy Nazi ideas :)
I should warn anyone, though, that this might open the floodgates of Sassy's logorrhoea, since she is a latter-day Arian.
-
why anybody believes anything without evidence is totally alien to me.
What would you consider as evidence?
-
Maybe someone should open a thread on the Arian heresy :) It won't be me, though I do know something about it .
Aw Go on............... Go on Go on Go on Go on Go on
-
Aw Go on............... Go on Go on Go on Go on Go on
These will be my last words on the subject: Arius died instantly of a rectal prolapse, after being 'taken short'. This was obviously the judgment of a righteous deity, punishing a vile false prophet.
-
Alas that's what sometimes comes when you talk through your arse.
You need to watch out then!
-
Maybe someone should open a thread on the Arian heresy :) It won't be me, though I do know something about it - certainly more than Floo, who last time I mentioned it thought I was referring to the other word spelt with a Y and associated with crazy Nazi ideas :)
I should warn anyone, though, that this might open the floodgates of Sassy's logorrhoea, since she is a latter-day Arian.
I could certainly understand that people might not consider Jesus as devine and still be a branch of Christianity but I think not believing in God would be pushing it!
-
What do you think I believe?
Ive already said I have no idea. why don't you just tell me and why you believe it
-
What would you consider as evidence?
erm... evidence, as in empirical
-
I could certainly understand that people might not consider Jesus as devine and still be a branch of Christianity but I think not believing in God would be pushing it!
Have you heard of non-realistic Christianity (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml#one) Maeght?
-
erm... evidence, as in empirical
Can you give any examples of what you would consider as empirical evidence, as you are already claiming in your #147 that there is none.
why anybody believes anything without evidence is totally alien to me.
-
Can you give any examples of what you would consider as empirical evidence?
It would be more productive if you produced your 'evidence ' then we could evaluate it on the board.
-
It would be more productive if you produced your 'evidence ' then we could evaluate it on the board.
Can you outline the process that you will be using to evaluating any evidence, since you cannot give any examples of what you would consider as evidence?
-
Sassy
is English your first language?
Πιστεύετε ότι μια γλώσσα θα αφαιρέσει το εμπόδιο για την αδυναμία σας να κατανοήσετε;
Ή να κρύψουν το γεγονός είστε σκόπιμη αποφυγή απαντώντας στη θέση;
-
Have you heard of non-realistic Christianity (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml#one) Maeght?
ive just read that .thanks. its a bit of an oxymoron though.
-
Can you outline the process that you will be using to evaluating any evidence, since you cannot give any examples of what you would consider as evidence?
If you look up 'empirical evidence' it tells you there.
-
Πιστεύετε ότι μια γλώσσα θα αφαιρέσει το εμπόδιο για την αδυναμία σας να κατανοήσετε;
Ή να κρύψουν το γεγονός είστε σκόπιμη αποφυγή απαντώντας στη θέση;
I thought so,
-
Have you heard of non-realistic Christianity (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml#one) Maeght?
One doesn't have to be a 'non-realistic Christian' to 'believe in God - but not in a fairy tale way'. One simply has to be a Christian.
-
If you look up 'empirical evidence' it tells you there.
The problem with your reliance on 'empirical' evidence is that it requires the evidence to be naturalistic, which requires one to believe that everything is naturalistic in nature. As I've pointed out a number of times over the last years, everyday life involves a mix of naturalistic and non-naturalistic aspects.
-
Hope
I know you have and up to now you haven't told us what those non-naturalistic aspects are, though you've been asked many times
-
The problem with your reliance on 'empirical' evidence is that it requires the evidence to be naturalistic, which requires one to believe that everything is naturalistic in nature.
It doesn't, since provided it is supported by an appropriate methodology you are perfectly free to present evidence that is mutually exclusive from naturalism - over to you.
As I've pointed out a number of times over the last years, everyday life involves a mix of naturalistic and non-naturalistic aspects.
So you have, but you've failed to demonstrate the latter.
-
It doesn't, since provided it is supported by an appropriate methodology you are perfectly free to present evidence that is mutually exclusive from naturalism - over to you.
That's been done, several times, over the years, Gordon - but it has simply been dismissed as being non-naturalistic in nature and therefore irrelevant
So you have, but you've failed to demonstrate the latter.
Sorry, Gordon, but I haven't failed to demonstrate anything; rather, the non-naturalistic aspects I've referred to have generally been ignored or explained away in an un-naturalistic manner.
However - let's take reality. What is it?
-
That's been done, several times, over the years, Gordon - but it has simply been dismissed as being non-naturalistic in nature and therefore irrelevant
It hasn't you know - if you think so heel free to remind us.
Sorry, Gordon, but I haven't failed to demonstrate anything; rather, the non-naturalistic aspects I've referred to have generally been ignored or explained away in an un-naturalistic manner.
That would be because you cited naturalistic stuff.
-
Hope
I think you are actually incapable of knowing the difference between reality and fiction on this subject.
Its not your fault, its the way your brain has developed.
-
Ive already said I have no idea. why don't you just tell me and why you believe it
By asking that you're assuming I have a belief aren't you? I don't. I am an atheist. But not one who thinks calling people's beliefs nonsense is a way of understanding why they have those beliefs.
-
Hope
I think you are actually incapable of knowing the difference between reality and fiction on this subject.
Its not your fault, its the way your brain has developed.
And what way would that be, Walter? From the few posts of yours I've read, I'd suggest that you have a very weak grasp of reality - a lot of what you have said has been discussed and shown to be open to debate over the period you claim to have been browsing here.
-
Hope
I know you have and up to now you haven't told us what those non-naturalistic aspects are, though you've been asked many times
Not only me but others have as well, Walter. As I've pointed out, they generally get dismissed on the very grounds that they are non-naturalistic.
Whilst I wouldn't claim wikipedia as a foolproof source, I found this opening gambit on reality interesting:
Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, whether or not it is observable or comprehensible. A still broader definition includes everything that has existed, exists, or will exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
-
It doesn't, since provided it is supported by an appropriate methodology you are perfectly free to present evidence that is mutually exclusive from naturalism - over to you.
So you have, but you've failed to demonstrate the latter.
naturalism doesn't have a methodology. When Nearly Sane led you down the methodology route he was merely afaddiddling the distinction between methodology and philosophy. He belittled himself intellectually and you lot drank it in like saps.
It's a methodology and that's that...not an ontology.
-
There is no debate Hope ,it exists only in the minds of the religious who cant believe they are wrong.
-
Not only me but others have as well, Walter. As I've pointed out, they generally get dismissed on the very grounds that they are non-naturalistic.
Whilst I wouldn't claim wikipedia as a foolproof source, I found this opening gambit on reality interesting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality
I can't see that the wiki quote helps very much unless you're interpreting it to mean that anything you think of might well be true.
-
Have you heard of non-realistic Christianity (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml#one) Maeght?
Had a quick read, that looks closer to plain atheism than christianity.
-
Have you heard of non-realistic Christianity (http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/types/christianatheism.shtml#one) Maeght?
No, never heard of it. Doesn't really look like Christianity to me.
-
Another poster stated on another thread that we couldn't have come from nothing, so by the same token nor could the deity. 'He was always there', doesn't cut the mustard, imo!
He created himself.
Either that or it's all bronze age goat herders inventing a sky pixie who discriminates against women and gays and lesbians and trans and queer and questioning and Stephen Fry.
What worries me more is ...who created Peter Hitchens?
-
There is no slavery in the UK.
I think that you will find the odd case here and there and now and ten, but these days usualy only individual cases rather than a large scale trade.
Although it seems that people trafficing of individuals from the old Eastern Bloc countries into the UK for the sex trade is quite frequent.
-
Bump!
For those who believe god is responsible for all creation, they still haven't explained who created god. 'God was always there', isn't an explanation.
-
Talk about spoilers, really .. can't you wait 'til the end of the story? My bet is on Alan :)
-
For those who believe god is responsible for all creation, they still haven't explained who created god. 'God was always there', isn't an explanation.
Especially for you Floo. I think you should have been in the place of Michael Douglas here...
Falling Down - Whats wrong with the street? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8b3963VRW4)
-
I disagree with modern slavery but am aware that it has increased along with secularisation in this country. I have never kept slaves and don't intend to since it is not fine.
I note Vlad, you stil can't get your head around secularism enough so that you could at least begin to understand the basics of it.
Ippy
-
I think that you will find the odd case here and there and now and ten, but these days usualy only individual cases rather than a large scale trade.
Although it seems that people trafficing of individuals from the old Eastern Bloc countries into the UK for the sex trade is quite frequent.
But it is illegal and nobody thinks it is a good idea except the criminals that make money off it.
-
What on earth has that got to do with this thread?
Does he mean Douglas Adams, the sort of thing I would do, I'm terrible with names?
ippy