Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: floo on March 28, 2016, 11:04:14 AM
-
deleted
-
Some Christians sing the praises of Jesus as he supposedly died to 'save' us. But even if that was true, what was the big deal? Other people have died when saving others and stayed dead, not having the supposed privilege of popping up alive three days later. Therefore people who deliberately put themselves in harm's way to save others, knowing they will probably be killed in the attempt, are more worthy of praise than Jesus, who knew he wasn't going to stay dead for long, if the Bible stories had any credence .
Easter Monday.......provocative thread title........you have our attention Floo.
The Floo modification (distortion)is that according to her Jesus never said to God 'why have you forsaken me'. The hole of Floo's argument depends on that edit.
-
Easter Monday.......provocative thread title........you have our attention Floo.
The Floo modification (distortion)is that according to her Jesus never said to God 'why have you forsaken me'. The hole of Floo's argument depends on that edit.
Excuse me, where did I say that? You are mistaking me with someone else!
-
Excuse me, where did I say that? You are mistaking me with someone else!
You peddle a distorted view of what the content of the Gospels are.
You can come up with a general conclusion but please don't make up a new narrative to fit that conclusion.
Rolling your own Gospel seems popular among antitheists and then they have the audacity to guff on about different viewpoints............. Most untrustworthy.
-
Dear Vlad,
Why? it's Floo, just tell me you were bored, I will accept that explanation and anyway I am much more interested about why Floo bleached her hard drive :o :o
Oh! and you will be pleased to know I stepped into Waterstones yesterday in search of a book on evolution, I departed with Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" the devil made me do it, he came in the shape of an atheist Waterstone assistant, so far I have learned that the good Prof likes dogs :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Vlad,
Why? it's Floo, just tell me you were bored, I will accept that explanation and anyway I am much more interested about why Floo bleached her hard drive :o :o
Oh! and you will be pleased to know I stepped into Waterstones yesterday in search of a book on evolution, I departed with Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" the devil made me do it, he came in the shape of an atheist Waterstone assistant, so far I have learned that the good Prof likes dogs :o :o
Gonnagle.
Meant to pay a visit to Kidneystones bookstore myself but got diverted into HMV. The forces of Darkness obviously seeped through the walls of Gallstones which is next door and I came away with a 3 for £20 deal on Blu rays.
Atheist Waterstones assistant?............I think we'll take that as read.
Dawkins? Are you having trouble sleeping?
-
Oh! and you will be pleased to know I stepped into Waterstones yesterday in search of a book on evolution, I departed with Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" the devil made me do it, he came in the shape of an atheist Waterstone assistant, so far I have learned that the good Prof likes dogs :o :o
Nice one Gonners - it's one of the best ones around. Hope you enjoy it.
-
What is "a big deal" is entirely subjective. For me, it was a big deal when my grandmother died but I doubt if anybody else on this forum knew her or cared.
The death of Jesus is a big deal to Christians because they have chosen to make it so. You can argue that many people have made bigger sacrifices, but you can't argue that something Christians tell us is important to them is not important to them.
-
Yes, the death of Jesus is a big deal whether we like it or not, even whether it really happened or not. Given how it's shaped history - or rather what people have believed what it means has - it's bern a big deal for many people for the past two thousand years whether or not they were Christisn; it's only recently that's begun to change.
-
You peddle a distorted view of what the content of the Gospels are.
You can come up with a general conclusion but please don't make up a new narrative to fit that conclusion.
Rolling your own Gospel seems popular among antitheists and then they have the audacity to guff on about different viewpoints............. Most untrustworthy.
Your view isn't distorted of course! ::)
The Floo modification (distortion)is that according to her Jesus never said to God 'why have you forsaken me'.
I am still awaiting an apology as it was NOT me who made that statement. ::)
-
Your view isn't distorted of course! ::)
The Floo modification (distortion)is that according to her Jesus never said to God 'why have you forsaken me'.
I am still awaiting an apology as it was NOT me who made that statement. ::)
I apologise.
Jesus knew he had the privilege of being raised later of course but ceased to believe this on the cross. I didn't know why you didn't include that in your OP.
-
Christians actually believe that Jesus died in order to save us. Whatever I may think about it is of no consequence. For them, Easter is a special time, I accept and respect that. Obviously it has no religious meaning for me at all, but, as long as they don't make it an excuse to involve me in any way, they are very welcome to pursue their own thoughts and rituals in this matter.
-
Christians actually believe that Jesus died in order to save us. Whatever I may think about it is of no consequence. For them, Easter is a special time, I accept and respect that. Obviously it has no religious meaning for me at all, but, as long as they don't make it an excuse to involve me in any way, they are very welcome to pursue their own thoughts and rituals in this matter.
Of course they are, always providing the more extreme ones don't try to shove it down the throats of non believers with threats if they don't get 'saved'.
-
Oh! and you will be pleased to know I stepped into Waterstones yesterday in search of a book on evolution, I departed with Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth"
Peculiar title....never associated Dawkins with the Circus. Nobody, because of it's nature can enjoy evolution as a show except as a mental construct. I think it ironic that the only person who could possibly enjoy the whole thing as a show is God.
Still it wouldn't be a Dawkins without a dodgy title.
-
Peculiar title....never associated Dawkins with the Circus. Nobody, because of it's nature can enjoy evolution as a show except as a mental construct.
The world is to say the least rather full of living things every single one of which has been shaped and brought to its current form by evolution, Vlad.
Sounds like you need the book more than Gonners.
-
Some Christians sing the praises of Jesus as he supposedly died to 'save' us. But even if that was true, what was the big deal? Other people have died when saving others and stayed dead, not having the supposed privilege of popping up alive three days later. Therefore people who deliberately put themselves in harm's way to save others, knowing they will probably be killed in the attempt, are more worthy of praise than Jesus, who knew he wasn't going to stay dead for long, if the Bible stories had any credence .
Since when did any of the others you refer to provide salvation for the whole of humanity, Floo?
-
Since when did any of the others you refer to provide salvation for the whole of humanity, Floo?
There is no evidence we need salvation. ::)
-
... it's only recently that's begun to change.
I'd disagree, Rhi. For all the legislation that existed in Western Europe and elsewhere over the centuries requiring people to attend church, there is no evidence that church attendance equated (or equates) with belief in Christ. I'd go as far as to suggest that it hasn't been that big deal for many people for the past two thousand years: as long as they attended church (which coud be a useful social process), they could believe what they wanted to - and perhaps didn't even bother attending church regularly.
-
There is no evidence we need salvation. ::)
That is your opinion. I'd suggest that the horrors that we hear about on a daily basis suggest that humanity does need salvation.
-
That is your opinion. I'd suggest that the horrors that we hear about on a daily basis suggest that humanity does need salvation.
And that is your opinion!
-
Dear Vlad,
Why? it's Floo, just tell me you were bored, I will accept that explanation and anyway I am much more interested about why Floo bleached her hard drive :o :o
Oh! and you will be pleased to know I stepped into Waterstones yesterday in search of a book on evolution, I departed with Dawkins "The Greatest Show on Earth" the devil made me do it, he came in the shape of an atheist Waterstone assistant, so far I have learned that the good Prof likes dogs :o :o
Gonnagle.
Watch out Gonners Hitler liked dogs too.
ippy
-
There is no evidence we need salvation. ::)
That assumes two things
1)knowledge of moral perfection
2) Ability to flawlessly achieve it. I've never seen it and I doubt you have.
and if you ''have'' i'm reminded of Socrates remark that if humanity ever came across a person who was morally perfect that person would be killed.
-
The world is to say the least rather full of living things every single one of which has been shaped and brought to its current form by evolution
Yep.........So what?
-
And that is your opinion!
OK. Perhaps you can explain the underlying principles upon which you clearly abhor cerrtain actions carried out by many humans, yet believe that humanity doesn't need salvation.
-
OK. Perhaps you can explain the underlying principles upon which you clearly abhor cerrtain actions carried out by many humans, yet believe that humanity doesn't need salvation.
Humans don't need saving by any deity, we are the authors of our own destiny and must concentrate on putting right what is wrong with the world.
-
The world is to say the least rather full of living things every single one of which has been shaped and brought to its current form by evolution, Vlad.
And in what way does that therefore mean that humanity - perhaps the whole of created evolution - doesn't need salvation, Shakes? Incidentally, are you a 'nature' or 'nurture' supporter?
-
Humans don't need saving by any deity, we are the authors of our own destiny and must concentrate on putting right what is wrong with the world.
....Only the sentimental would believe we can.
However we are going back into the antitheists moral comfort Zone, where they individually are one of the Good guys in society and other elements spoil there messianic efforts to make the world a better place........Dangerous sentimental nonsense which misses the point if you ask me.
-
Yep.........So what?
So your post (#13) was arrant twaddle.
-
And in what way does that therefore mean that humanity - perhaps the whole of created evolution - doesn't need salvation, Shakes? Incidentally, are you a 'nature' or 'nurture' supporter?
I'm not discussing "salvation" as it's a nonsense. I'm refuting Vlad's bilge in #13. Keep up.
-
That is your opinion. I'd suggest that the horrors that we hear about on a daily basis suggest that humanity does need salvation.
I really can't see any kind of logic in this salvation thing of yours Hope, other than I wouldn't want anyone to be crucified the whole thing about this chap being executed and supposedly coming back to life doesn't make any worthwhile sense to me, I suppose the Martyr bit could figure in some way or another, but the rest of it who cares and those that do care it still doesn't make sense to me.
Why you even think it's a part of reality? Pass it's all yours.
I can live a decent life without any of that.
ippy
-
So your post (#13) was arrant twaddle.
No.
I think you fell for the old antitheist fallacy that anyone who disagrees with Dr Dawkins is a biblical literalist creationist.
Only people who find science gives them a mystical wow and who are linguistic pirates would come out with a title like that.
It is ironic that he chose what is an historically acknowledged and obvious piece of carnival hype like ''The greatest show on Earth''.
-
Dear Vlad,
He got the title of his book from a T shirt he was given by an anonymous well wisher which read "Evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth, The Only Game in Town" and that bloody atheist Waterstone assistant is a damned liar, I asked for a book which would help me understand evolution more fully and not be full of digs at creationists, actually Dawkins calls them history deniers, deluded to the point of perversity, hell what did I expect! it's good old Dickie at his best >:(
Gonnagle.
PS: It is actually quite a good book, a bit plodding at times, just like his God Delusion, but it is full of little interesting facts, enough to keep me entertained, oh! and it has pictures, he must have known I would want to read his book ::)
-
I'd disagree, Rhi. For all the legislation that existed in Western Europe and elsewhere over the centuries requiring people to attend church, there is no evidence that church attendance equated (or equates) with belief in Christ. I'd go as far as to suggest that it hasn't been that big deal for many people for the past two thousand years: as long as they attended church (which coud be a useful social process), they could believe what they wanted to - and perhaps didn't even bother attending church regularly.
Read what I said again.
-
Dear Vlad,
He got the title of his book from a T shirt he was given by an anonymous well wisher which read "Evolution, The Greatest Show on Earth, The Only Game in Town" and that bloody atheist Waterstone assistant is a damned liar, I asked for a book which would help me understand evolution more fully and not be full of digs at creationists, actually Dawkins calls them history deniers, deluded to the point of perversity, hell what did I expect! it's good old Dickie at his best >:(
Gonnagle.
Sounds like a typical Murdstone sales pitch. They worship the Dawk at Puddingstones don't you know?
Still Richard Dawkins .......in a tee shirt......phwoooaaaarrrrr.
Thanks Mr G, you've made an old man very happy.
-
That is your opinion. I'd suggest that the horrors that we hear about on a daily basis suggest that humanity does need salvation.
Since we hear about these horrors on a daily basis exactly what did the death of Jesus save us from?
-
Since we hear about these horrors on a daily basis exactly what did the death of Jesus save us from?
The character destroying consequences of our actions.
I remember seeing on TV a group of men and women being rounded up in Ruanda after they had massacred a village. They had been previously law abiding and kind neighbours to those they had slaughtered their expression was not so much realisation of what they had done but self horror in something that they had lost in themselves in the time of madness.
-
The character destroying consequences of our actions.
I remember seeing on TV a group of men and women being rounded up in Ruanda after they had massacred a village. They had been previously law abiding and kind neighbours to those they had slaughtered their expression was not so much realisation of what they had done but self horror in something that they had lost in themselves in the time of madness.
ehh,
So despite the death of Jesus they still slaughtered people and then felt guilty about it.
A great comfort to the victims I'm sure.
So again who was saved?
-
ehh,
So despite the death of Jesus they still slaughtered people and then felt guilty about it.
A great comfort to the victims I'm sure.
So again who was saved?
Self excuse is the preserve of atheism.
-
Self excuse is the preserve of atheism.
What are you on about?
In what way did the death of Jesus Save us?
Hope said we need saving because there was a lot of horrible stuff going on. However, Jesus is dead and horrible stuff is still going on. You gave an example of something horrible. In what way would your example have been more horrible if Jesus had not died to save us?
-
What are you on about?
In what way did the death of Jesus Save us?
Hope said we need saving because there was a lot of horrible stuff going on. However, Jesus is dead and horrible stuff is still going on. You gave an example of something horrible. In what way would your example have been more horrible if Jesus had not died to save us?
The consequences of sin will be revealed at the judgment. Even Kant said that the consequences of our actions will not be fully known until the end of history. You seem to think in terms of speedily transacted actions with shallow consequences.
So there is a sense in that we are both saved and will be saved.......if we have sought the saviour.
-
You seem to think in terms of speedily transacted actions with shallow consequences.
So genocide (your example) is something of shallow consequences?
So there is a sense in that we are both saved and will be saved.......if we have sought the saviour.
Well I'm asking about the will be saved. What is different now than before (the alleged) crucifixion and resurrection? If there had been no more wars or disease you might have something, but how do you know that is has had any effect in terms of saving us?
-
So genocide (your example) is something of shallow consequences?
Well I'm asking about the will be saved. What is different now than before (the alleged) crucifixion and resurrection? If there had been no more wars or disease you might have something, but how do you know that is has had any effect in terms of saving us?
How many people are actually trying Christianity out personally?
It seems that for centuries people have seen it in political, social and cultural terms so have swung a nominal Christianity between the two foci of it being a political, social and cultural base of power or something to be oppressed in those contexts.
-
How many people are actually trying Christianity out personally?
Lots of people apparently.
Anyway it's irrelavent, either Jesus dying saved us or it didn't.
-
The consequences of sin will be revealed at the judgment.
Can we have something a bit more concrete, please?
-
Can we have something a bit more concrete, please?
How about a motorway flyover?
-
How about a motorway flyover?
Well, that would do. At least they're real.
-
Well, that would do. At least they're real.
....and concrete.
-
Since when did any of the others you refer to provide salvation for the whole of humanity, Floo?
Salvation from what?
-
Salvation from what?
Exactly JP, I always wonder what the likes of Hope are on about; I understand the words they use when they describe what it is they mean by salvation but I cannot see any sensible reason to think that way,so as per your question, salvation from what?
ippy
-
Exactly JP, I always wonder what the likes of Hope are on about; I understand the words they use when they describe what it is they mean by salvation but I cannot see any sensible reason to think that way,so as per your question, salvation from what?
ippy
The cartoon that Shaker put up recently answers that. To save us from what he will do if we don't believe in him! ;D ;D ;D
-
The cartoon that Shaker put up recently answers that. To save us from what he will do if we don't believe in him! ;D ;D ;D
And that is why the cartoon is so poor. If anything, its to save us from what we will do to ourselves if we don't believe in Him. OK, if you don't believe that humanity is a pretty nasty piece of work, happily destroying each other and the world in which it lives, then you don't see the need for humanity to be saved from itself. Those of us who see events unfolding on the news that illustrate man's inhumanity to man believe differently.
Regarding what God will do to us if we don't believe in Him - the Bible makes that clear: he'll leave us to the consequences of our own choices. In fact, he doesn't actually need to do anything. It is we who condemn ourselves to whatever our future holds.
-
And that is why the cartoon is so poor. If anything, its to save us from what we will do to ourselves if we don't believe in Him. OK, if you don't believe that humanity is a pretty nasty piece of work, happily destroying each other and the world in which it lives, then you don't see the need for humanity to be saved from itself. Those of us who see events unfolding on the news that illustrate man's inhumanity to man believe differently.
But this is the only possible world that can exist if an omniscient, omnipotent god created it.
If humanity is a nasty piece of work you only have the designer to blame.
Regarding what God will do to us if we don't believe in Him - the Bible makes that clear: he'll leave us to the consequences of our own choices. In fact, he doesn't actually need to do anything. It is we who condemn ourselves to whatever our future holds.
What a nasty threat. I don't believe in Him because I a never seen anything to convince me he exists. So unless I do come to believe in Him what do you think the consequences will be that I face?
-
And that is why the cartoon is so poor. If anything, its to save us from what we will do to ourselves if we don't believe in Him. OK, if you don't believe that humanity is a pretty nasty piece of work, happily destroying each other and the world in which it lives, then you don't see the need for humanity to be saved from itself. Those of us who see events unfolding on the news that illustrate man's inhumanity to man believe differently.
Regarding what God will do to us if we don't believe in Him - the Bible makes that clear: he'll leave us to the consequences of our own choices. In fact, he doesn't actually need to do anything. It is we who condemn ourselves to whatever our future holds.
Oh dear me no ...all wrong thinking. I really don't think there is any point in me trying to explain all the wrongness to you, because you will simply close your eyes to it.
Suffice it to say that humanity is neither bad nor good ... it is just a natural phenomenon produced by evolution. It contains all kinds of behaviour, some of which is good (in our eyes) and some that is bad. but it is all natural to the individual concerned.
For our own survival and good we have to work out a moral code, which is what we have done, based on the cooperative instincts of our species. That moral code must control the bad behaviour and encourage the good.
-
The cartoon that Shaker put up recently answers that. To save us from what he will do if we don't believe in him! ;D ;D ;D
I don't believe that........so are you going to engage with what I believe or carry on in denial or with your caricature view point.
-
I don't believe that........so are you going to engage with what I believe or carry on in denial or with your caricature view point.
I can only do that if you tell me what you do believe.
The cartoon merely points out that some Christian teaching tells us that we must believe in Jesus to be saved, and if we don't believe we won't be saved.
That's all.
-
I can only do that if you tell me what you do believe.
The cartoon merely points out that some Christian teaching tells us that we must believe in Jesus to be saved, and if we don't believe we won't be saved.
That's all.
The second paragraph of Hope's msg 50 seems to say exactly that. Although most people who hold that view are a bit coy about what the consequences of not being saved are. It might be quite nice.
-
I can only do that if you tell me what you do believe.
The cartoon merely points out that some Christian teaching tells us that we must believe in Jesus to be saved, and if we don't believe we won't be saved.
That's all.
Well I believe that Jesus saves in the truest sense. From the results of our own sins of commission (commit sin) and omission (omitting to act when we should. These are sins that we commit and are the authors of...Not God, Not the devil. So Jesus saves us from the damage to the self that these do even though he has no moral obligation to do so.
Since these sins are in a sense our property he has no legal right to take them away so he invites us to an offer of taking them away.
If we turn away the hand of the saviour then we have turned away salvation or saving in it's truest and purest sense.
-
Well I believe that Jesus saves in the truest sense. From the results of our own sins of commission (commit sin) and omission (omitting to act when we should. These are sins that we commit and are the authors of...Not God, Not the devil. So Jesus saves us from the damage to the self that these do even though he has no moral obligation to do so.
Since these since are in a sense our property he has no legal right to take them away so he invites us to an offer of taking them away.
If we turn away the hand of the saviour then we have turned away salvation or saving in it's truest and purest sense.
But believing in Jesus is not a matter of choice, Johnny. We cannot make ourselves believe something which our reason doesn't accept.
-
Since these sins are in a sense our property he has no legal right to take them away so he invites us to an offer of taking them away.
If we turn away the hand of the saviour then we have turned away salvation or saving in it's truest and purest sense.
Well according to you I have turned down this offer. So what are the consequences? What would be different in my life if today I did believe and accept the offer?
-
Well according to you I have turned down this offer. So what are the consequences? What would be different in my life if today I did believe and accept the offer?
I have no say as to whether you have or not turned it down........that is a matter between you and God since he is making the offer to you.
You would be right with God. A relationship with him would be forged.
-
Since we hear about these horrors on a daily basis exactly what did the death of Jesus save us from?
Despite what some like to have us believe, pretty well all humanity does wrong given the opportunity. As said people also like us to believe, we have likely improved in our attitudes to each other and even to some of the more horrendous potential behaviours. You can argue that this development is a result of Jesus' death and resurrection and its impact on humanity.
-
Despite what some like to have us believe, pretty well all humanity does wrong given the opportunity. As said people also like us to believe, we have likely improved in our attitudes to each other and even to some of the more horrendous potential behaviours. You can argue that this development is a result of Jesus' death and resurrection and its impact on humanity.
Really? Including amongst people who don't believe in Jesus?
How then do you explain the fact - it is one - that human behaviour has improved, living standards and societal health the best they've ever been for the greatest number at a time when religious adherence has withered?
-
But believing in Jesus is not a matter of choice, Johnny. We cannot make ourselves believe something which our reason doesn't accept.
And nor is much of what we do and think a matter of choice, Len. There are many things that we have to accept without recourse to reason.
-
And nor is much of what we do and think a matter of choice, Len. There are many things that we have to accept without recourse to reason.
Like?
-
Really? Including amongst people who don't believe in Jesus?
Well, God is able to use people who don't believe in him (think, for instance, of the example of Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 2).
-
Well, God is able to use people who don't believe in him (think, for instance, of the example of Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 2).
Pure assertion, of course.
-
Like?
OK, when you fall in love, do you analyse the situation scientifically and rationally? If you fear or worry about something, do you think rationally about why the fear of worry exists?
-
Pure assertion, of course.
It might be pure assertion, but then you can't prove that it isn't also truth (don't forget that assertion and truth aren't necessarily exclusive).
-
Well, God is able to use people who don't believe in him (think, for instance, of the example of Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 2).
So God will use people who don't believe in him for good and then chuck them in the burny burny place for not worshipping him anyway. Nice.
-
OK, when you fall in love, do you analyse the situation scientifically and rationally?
It's certainly something that can be approached scientifically - and has been and is.
If you fear or worry about something, do you think rationally about why the fear of worry exists?
Yes, I do.
-
Well, God is able to use people who don't believe in him (think, for instance, of the example of Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 2).
The Biblical author was made an assertion, without any evidence, just like you.
-
OK, when you fall in love, do you analyse the situation scientifically and rationally? If you fear or worry about something, do you think rationally about why the fear of worry exists?
Rationalising fear is at the heart of many therapies including CBT. It's good for us.
-
Despite what some like to have us believe, pretty well all humanity does wrong given the opportunity. As said people also like us to believe, we have likely improved in our attitudes to each other and even to some of the more horrendous potential behaviours.
Actually I would say that most people would do wrong under certain circumstances rather than having the opportunity. If I were to walk into a shop and find it unattended I would not steal anything. However, if I was starving and felt unjustly treated by society then I might be able to justify it to myself.
You can argue that this development is a result of Jesus' death and resurrection and its impact on humanity.
Well go on then argue it.
I also note you did not answer the second part of my post about what the consequences are of unbelief, or indeed the issue of how a world created by an omniscient, omnipotent god could be any other way.
-
It might be pure assertion, but then you can't prove that it isn't also truth (don't forget that assertion and truth aren't necessarily exclusive).
Oh dear.. there is a name for that logical blunder.
::)I wonder what it is.
-
And nor is much of what we do and think a matter of choice, Len. There are many things that we have to accept without recourse to reason.
Which is no help at all, is it! I can't choose to believe in God because there is no evidence for him and plenty against.
-
And nor is much of what we do and think a matter of choice, Len. There are many things that we have to accept without recourse to reason.
So do you accept the existence of God without recourse to reason? If you don't why do we?
-
And that is why the cartoon is so poor. If anything, its to save us from what we will do to ourselves if we don't believe in Him. OK, if you don't believe that humanity is a pretty nasty piece of work, happily destroying each other and the world in which it lives, then you don't see the need for humanity to be saved from itself. Those of us who see events unfolding on the news that illustrate man's inhumanity to man believe differently.
Regarding what God will do to us if we don't believe in Him - the Bible makes that clear: he'll leave us to the consequences of our own choices. In fact, he doesn't actually need to do anything. It is we who condemn ourselves to whatever our future holds.
This stuff of yours is all very well and good luck if that's what you have chosen to believe.
As for your glass half full or half empty, good and bad world, I notice the "live your life by religious rules lot" are queuing up to come up to live in our world where religion is going tats at a considerable rate of knots, because we are more into live and let live, all largely without religion of any kind being involved.
Having said that I would find not just your particular religious lot but all of them a lot more bearable if they were to get out of the lives of all of the very young children, teach the very young children how to think for themselves first and perhaps there might some time left for your or anyone else to promote your chosen dogma, after that.
Look at that Muslim in Glasgow killed for what, bloody stupid religious twisted reasoning; some of which would come to an end if we stop teaching religion to the very young.
ippy
-
The cartoon that Shaker put up recently answers that. To save us from what he will do if we don't believe in him! ;D ;D ;D
Haven't seen that one Len, any chance of a link? Ta in advance.
ippy
-
Rationalising fear is at the heart of many therapies including CBT. It's good for us.
Not coincidentally CBT was precisely and exactly what I had in mind when I wrote my post.
-
It might be pure assertion, but then you can't prove that it isn't also truth (don't forget that assertion and truth aren't necessarily exclusive).
Bingo! Today's first negative proof fallacy.
-
Oh dear.. there is a name for that logical blunder.
::)I wonder what it is.
Heh ;D
It's one very, very familiar indeed to us all when Hope's around, Stephen ;)
-
Haven't seen that one Len, any chance of a link? Ta in advance.
ippy
I don't have it, but Shakes does.
-
There you go ippy: https://goo.gl/XkXBLP
-
Hopester,
It might be pure assertion, but then you can't prove that it isn't also truth (don't forget that assertion and truth aren't necessarily exclusive).
Wow! Three weeks locked out of this mb only to return to find you're still peddling the negative proof fallacy. I think perhaps that it's time to reward you for your dogged persistence in the face of the such a crushing logical error: a small commemorative teapot inscribed "B. Russell" is on its way to you as we speak...enjoy!
-
As well as the teapot perhaps we could club together and buy him this: http://goo.gl/ktySAK
-
Hopester,
Wow! Three weeks locked out of this mb only to return to find you're still peddling the negative proof fallacy. I think perhaps that it's time to reward you for your dogged persistence in the face of the such a crushing logical error: a small commemorative teapot inscribed "B. Russell" is on its way to you as we speak...enjoy!
We all know it's your keepers are on respite time at the mo, all that locked out rubbish.
ippy
-
There you go ippy: https://goo.gl/XkXBLP
Cheers Shakes, like it, bit deep innit.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
That is the problem, which pill you take before you enter the forum, the red pill or the blue pill. ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ippy,
That is the problem, which pill you take before you enter the forum, the red pill or the blue pill. ::)
Gonnagle.
Which ever one my keepers give me Gonners, before they let me out of my jacket, the one that only fastens at the back.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
That is the problem, which pill you take before you enter the forum, the red pill or the blue pill. ::)
Gonnagle.
If you're using a laptop, it would be unwise to take the blue bill - you might not be able to keep your computer steady on your thighs.
-
If you're using a laptop, it would be unwise to take the blue bill - you might not be able to keep your computer steady on your thighs.
Yes a friend of mine did tell me about those, a close friend.
ippy
-
OK, if you don't believe that humanity is a pretty nasty piece of work, happily destroying each other
Who do you know that happily destroys other people? I don't know anybody like that.
you don't see the need for humanity to be saved from itself.
The irony of a system in which the only way to save humans from destroying each other is to destroy Jesus seems to be lost on you.
-
If you fear or worry about something, do you think rationally about why the fear of worry exists?
Yes of course. You should try it sometime.
-
If you're using a laptop, it would be unwise to take the blue bill - you might not be able to keep your computer steady on your thighs.
Unless you are female, of course! ;)
-
Why, because women are better at multitasking?
-
Why, because women are better at multitasking?
That's by far the sweeter interpretation. ;)
-
My husband is terrible at multi-tasking, on the rare occasions he was expected to look after the kids as infants, I would come home to find he had done nothing else like wash up or other chores. He said he couldn't possibly be expected to do chores as well, as looking after the kids was a full time job, YE GODS! ::)
-
I also note you did not answer the second part of my post about what the consequences are of unbelief, or indeed the issue of how a world created by an omniscient, omnipotent god could be any other way.
We've done that particular topic to death over the months Stephen, but I did touch on it in Reply #50 on: March 29, 2016, 10:53:37 AM. Your response "What a nasty threat" simply highlights the fact that you don't understand God's love.
Let me give you a very human example:
A year or so ago a young woman was murdered in a 'half-way' house in a place called Argoed in Caerphilly. The man who did the deed had a history of drug-abuse, and a criminal record. It was known that he had serious reactions to some of the drugs he abused, and had been offered "support to address his addiction after being released from prison, but had not been willing to take up that help" (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-35920468) Some have said that he ought to have been forced to accept such support, others have said that he had the human right to decline it.
Which is your view?
How does that translate into the religious debate that opened this? Should God force us to make a particular choice, or does he show 'greater love' by allowing us to make our own choices? In post #51, you go on to say "I don't believe in Him because I a never seen anything to convince me he exists." There are millions around the world who have seen the same as you and come to the conclusion that he does exist. Arguing, as you and others here do, that there isn't the evidence is therefore open to discussion (and is in part the reason for this forum in the first place) and not simply a cop out. You have made a choice based on your own understanding. Others have made very different choices based on an equivalent understanding.
-
Should God force us to make a particular choice, or does he show 'greater love' by allowing us to make our own choices?
As I've pointed out before, the idea of us making 'free' choices from the point of view of an omnipotent, omniscient, creator, makes no sense at all.
There are millions around the world who have seen the same as you and come to the conclusion that he does exist.
If they all believed in the same god, it would be (slightly) more convincing. They don't.
You realize how many different gods have been invented (even if one or more is real, they can't all be)?
http://www.godchecker.com/
-
My husband is terrible at multi-tasking, on the rare occasions he was expected to look after the kids as infants, I would come home to find he had done nothing else like wash up or other chores. He said he couldn't possibly be expected to do chores as well, as looking after the kids was a full time job, YE GODS! ::)
I really notice this difference when I'm reading and my wife says something to me, I'm switched into reading mode and don't hear a word she says until after about the fifth or sixth word she has said, then I have to switch into listening mode and have no idea what those first few words were that she said, I'm not deliberately not listening, that's how the male brain works, well this male brain.
I assume visa versa a woman would have been able to listen and read at the same time?
I also love BBC Radio 4 when on my own I can listen to it all day, I sort of switch off the bits I'm not interested in, and somehow when I hear a personal interest trip word I then switch on my hearing and listen, is this a male thing only it drives my wife mad to have Rad 4 on all day, it seems she is unable to switch off the bits she's not interested in.
ippy
-
Dear ippy,
Much simpler than that, when Floos hubby says he was looking after the kids, what he really means, sorry I was in Peter Pan mode, damn the dishes and chores I just want to play, science backs this up, man ( not woman ) is the Ape which never grew up, woman mature faster than men, men are just big kids. ::)
Imagine a world if the female of the species had been dominant, would we have had less war, war is a messy business, women hate mess. :P
Gonnagle.
-
Dear ippy,
Much simpler than that, when Floos hubby says he was looking after the kids, what he really means, sorry I was in Peter Pan mode, damn the dishes and chores I just want to play, science backs this up, man ( not woman ) is the Ape which never grew up, woman mature faster than men, men are just big kids. ::)
Imagine a world if the female of the species had been dominant, would we have had less war, war is a messy business, women hate mess. :P
Gonnagle.
WELL SAID, you are so right, even though you are a guy, poor thing! ;D ;D ;D
-
Some Christians sing the praises of Jesus as he supposedly died to 'save' us. But even if that was true, what was the big deal? Other people have died when saving others and stayed dead, not having the supposed privilege of popping up alive three days later. Therefore people who deliberately put themselves in harm's way to save others, knowing they will probably be killed in the attempt, are more worthy of praise than Jesus, who knew he wasn't going to stay dead for long, if the Bible stories had any credence .
Nicely put.
Going to your "death" knowing that you'll be back is hardly a sacrifice and pales into insignificance when compared to those who have died for their non-beliefs thinking that death is final.
-
Nicely put.
Going to your "death" knowing that you'll be back is hardly a sacrifice and pales into insignificance when compared to those who have died for their non-beliefs thinking that death is final.
What happened to ''why have you forsaken me?''.
Khatru is back with his bible editing scissors.
-
What happened to ''why have you forsaken me?''.
Khatru is back with his bible editing scissors.
So you think Jesus did not come back and is actually dead.
Welcome to reality.
-
Dear ippy,
Much simpler than that, when Floos hubby says he was looking after the kids, what he really means, sorry I was in Peter Pan mode, damn the dishes and chores I just want to play, science backs this up, man ( not woman ) is the Ape which never grew up, woman mature faster than men, men are just big kids. ::)
Imagine a world if the female of the species had been dominant, would we have had less war, war is a messy business, women hate mess. :P
Gonnagle.
I've got to give you that one Gonners it's just that the toys get bigger and more expensive, the mess bit I have to confess maybe that's my feminine side I'm the tidiest one here in this household, I'm always in trouble for putting things away, not so much away, but, as I see it, putting them where they should be.
Sorry about the tidy bit Gonners.
ippy
-
Nicely put.
Going to your "death" knowing that you'll be back is hardly a sacrifice and pales into insignificance when compared to those who have died for their non-beliefs thinking that death is final.
A pretty horrible, gruesome death to have to go to Khatru. He was fully human after all so experienced fear and pain the same as anyone else. He also had the choice.
-
So you think Jesus did not come back and is actually dead.
Welcome to reality.
No God raised him from the dead. Jesus however was convinced that God had abandoned him.
Reality?........................... Gordon Be Rational is another person who believes there is no God.
-
What happened to ''why have you forsaken me?''.
Khatru is back with his bible editing scissors.
You do know that Jesus didn't actually say "Why have you forsaken me?", don't you?
It's a common mistranslation based on something that was originally incorrectly heard.
What Jesus actually said was "Why have you foreskinned me?"
This is how we know that Jesus was not a Jew.
-
A pretty horrible, gruesome death to have to go to Khatru. He was fully human after all so experienced fear and pain the same as anyone else. He also had the choice.
But he knew he wasn't going to stay dead.
As was commonplace in those far-off days, he returned from the dead.
-
No God raised him from the dead. Jesus however was convinced that God had abandoned him.
Reality?........................... Gordon Be Rational is another person who believes there is no God.
Who said I believed that?
I am prepared to die on the same basis as Jesus.
I am even prepared to stay dead for 6 days, making me twice as good as him.
-
No God raised him from the dead. Jesus however was convinced that God had abandoned him
Jesus thought he was abandoned? Yes, that's true if you just stick to the Gospel of Mark.
Perhaps you'd better check out what Luke says and you'll see a Jesus who felt anything but abandoned.......
The Jesus in Luke has no need to ask the supreme cosmic mega-being why he's been forsaken. This Jesus knows the reason he must die and he spends his dying moments showing more concern for others than for himself.
Rather than uttering a cry of despairing hopelessness, Jesus prays to the supreme xosmic mega-being and says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit". This is not a Jesus who feels he's been abandoned; this is a Jesus who knows full well why he has to die and what will be happening afterwards. After all, he even told one of the thieves that "you will be with me in paradise". Yes, Jesus knew exactly what was happening and he certainly didn't feel he had been abandoned.
Damn those biblical contradictions!
-
Jesus thought he was abandoned? Yes, that's true if you just stick to the Gospel of Mark.
Rather than uttering a cry of despairing hopelessness, Jesus prays to the supreme xosmic mega-being and says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit". This is not a Jesus who feels he's been abandoned; this is a Jesus who knows full well why he has to die and what will be happening afterwards. After all, he even told one of the thieves that "you will be with me in paradise". Yes, Jesus knew exactly what was happening and he certainly didn't feel he had been abandoned.
I suppose you could argue that in your interpretation of Luke, the trouble is that you make the crucifixion seem like one flippant cakewalk......and that just makes your interpretation not credible.........I half expected you to include him sending out for a pizza or two. You completely discounted Mark and there is nothing to eliminate the period of doubt and abandonment from the crucifixion account or contradictory to Luke I'm afraid.
-
I'm with you on that Jon. Biblical scholars believe that the gospel of Mark was written quite a long time before Luke's, within twenty years of Jesus's crucifixion and he may have known Jesus and witnessed the crucifixion. Luke was a Hellenistic Jew and I don't think He knew Jesus in the flesh. Of course none of this is written in tablets of stone but it seems right as far as anyone can tell. Therefore Mark has a better recall of events. His gospel is also short and to the point, very clear.
-
OK, so you're both saying that Luke is unreliable and your preference is for Mark.
That stuff Jesus is supposed to have said like "Father forgive them, they know not what they do" and “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” and “Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.” wasn't actually said then.
You both prefer Mark's account of a silent, confused Jesus who felt he had been abandoned by his father as opposed to Luke's version of a Jesus who knew the score, wasn't abandoned and was in communion with his father.
No probs, Luke got it wrong - I get you.
That still leaves the problem of a contradiction between the two quite different accounts of Jesus as he faced his temporary death:
You've got Mark's account of the death of Jesus as set out at Mark 15:16-39. Here Jesus doesn't say a word until he's on the cross and he utters his cry of dereliction. This is the Jesus you both want to see...a clueless Jesus who doesn't know what's going on and genuinely wants to know why the supreme cosmic mega-being has left him like this. It's a Jesus full of despair and that's the way he dies (albeit a temporary death).
Contrast that with the Jesus that Luke describes in Luke 23:26-4 . This is the Jesus you both don't want to see.....a Jesus who is anything but silent. Even when he's nailed to the cross Jesus knows what the score is and he appears to be in communion with the supreme cosmic mega-being as he tells his father to forgive them. Then Jesus says "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit". This is a Jesus who has no need to ask the supreme cosmic mega-being why he's been forsaken. This Jesus knows the reason he must die and just like you'd expect from Jesus, he expresses concern for others rather than himself.
The contradiction remains and you've both chosen your preferred account.
-
Gordon Bennett Khatru! If there are two or more accounts of the same thing, about the same person, they are bound to differ in emphasis. It doesn't make one right and the other(s) wrong. The experiences of the writers of the gospels are unique to each of them and all are worth exploring.
Matthew 27:32-56, Mark 15:21-38, Luke 23:26-49, and John 19:16-37
Mark is often underrated, there is more scholarship surrounding the others but they are all about Jesus and told from differing perspectives. That's all.
-
Gordon Bennett Khatru! If there are two or more accounts of the same thing, about the same person, they are bound to differ in emphasis. It doesn't make one right and the other(s) wrong. The experiences of the writers of the gospels are unique to each of them and all are worth exploring.
Matthew 27:32-56, Mark 15:21-38, Luke 23:26-49, and John 19:16-37
Mark is often underrated, there is more scholarship surrounding the others but they are all about Jesus and told from differing perspectives. That's all.
Of course neither of them were wrong. I just showed a fundamental contradiction in the character of Jesus as depicted by the two different accounts. The account of what Jesus said as told in Mark and Luke are contradictory. It's not a case of one being right and the other wrong.
The respective authors of these accounts were their own people - individuals saying it in the manner in which they wanted to say it. Letting them have their say is what we should do and that's irrespective of any inconsistencies, errors or contradictions that may show.
What you're doing is making one overarching story of Jesus from what are, in some cases, quite different accounts. Tell me...Is it safe to say that in your take on the Gospels, Jesus says and does everything that they say he did?
Well, maybe not as you did expressly state that you favoured Mark's version of events over what Luke had to say.
Unlike you, I don't believe the tales of the Gospels but whatever messages that Mark, Luke, etc, where trying to convey are glossed over by you and are lost in translation. To look at the stories in your way means stripping the writers of their integrity as an author and replacing their meaning with your own.