Total Posts:146|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Obsession With Religion

RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Before I became a believer, I don't recall ever having anything against religion or Christianity. I could honestly say, I was free from religion. Not an obsessed bone in my body. If I wasn't a Christian now, I don't think I would bother with any religious internet discussions.

When someone from time to time would present the Gospel to me, it didn't bother me one bit. I didn't feel imposed upon. My thought, if anything was, I don't agree with this person, but at least they are apparently concerned with my soul. But the fact of the matter was, after our brief encounter, it was over. It was just like waiting in line at a supermarket. We don't live to wait in supermarket lines. But we persevere through it because after we're handed our grocery bag and receipt (we have to pay 10 cents for a grocery bag where I live), we can forget all about the waiting experience (including the person at a product promotional table trying to sell you something you don't want). And that's what I did after every encounter with a Christian who gave me the Gospel message. It was brief, and once it was over, that's it. Imposing religion upon me? Hardly.

What is very obvious however, is that there are many non-religious folk, absolutely obsessed with religion. Some in even a more occupational capacity (activist organizations). I know that the alleged reason is that these obsessed individuals want to save as many people from religion as possible. So we get this sort of sacrificial life-style martyrdom claim. This idea that since religion permeates so much of society, they will never be able to live in the world they desire (a religious free world), so they are presumably working towards sparing some generation 100 years from now that they won't get to see.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 4:33:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Before I became a believer, I don't recall ever having anything against religion or Christianity. I could honestly say, I was free from religion. Not an obsessed bone in my body. If I wasn't a Christian now, I don't think I would bother with any religious internet discussions.

When someone from time to time would present the Gospel to me, it didn't bother me one bit. I didn't feel imposed upon. My thought, if anything was, I don't agree with this person, but at least they are apparently concerned with my soul. But the fact of the matter was, after our brief encounter, it was over. It was just like waiting in line at a supermarket. We don't live to wait in supermarket lines. But we persevere through it because after we're handed our grocery bag and receipt (we have to pay 10 cents for a grocery bag where I live), we can forget all about the waiting experience (including the person at a product promotional table trying to sell you something you don't want). And that's what I did after every encounter with a Christian who gave me the Gospel message. It was brief, and once it was over, that's it. Imposing religion upon me? Hardly.

What is very obvious however, is that there are many non-religious folk, absolutely obsessed with religion. Some in even a more occupational capacity (activist organizations). I know that the alleged reason is that these obsessed individuals want to save as many people from religion as possible. So we get this sort of sacrificial life-style martyrdom claim. This idea that since religion permeates so much of society, they will never be able to live in the world they desire (a religious free world), so they are presumably working towards sparing some generation 100 years from now that they won't get to see.

Before I became a non-believer, I don't recall ever having anything against atheism or Secularism. I could honestly say, I was free with religion. Not an obsessed bone in my body. If I wasn't an atheist now, I don't think I would bother with any religious internet discussions.

When someone from time to time would present anti-theistic material to me, it didn't bother me one bit. I didn't feel imposed upon. My thought, if anything was, I don't agree with this person, but at least they are apparently concerned with people's belief systems. But the fact of the matter was, after our brief encounter, it was over. It was just like waiting in line at a supermarket. We don't live to wait in supermarket lines. But we persevere through it because after we're handed our grocery bag and receipt (we have to pay 10 cents for a grocery bag where I live), we can forget all about the waiting experience (including the person at a product promotional table trying to sell you something you don't want). And that's what I did after every encounter with an atheist who gave me the secular message. It was brief, and once it was over, that's it. Imposing anti-religion upon me? Hardly.

What is very obvious however, is that there are many religious folk, absolutely obsessed with atheism/secularism. Some in even a more occupational capacity (organised religions, imposition of one's religious values). I know that the alleged reason is that these obsessed individuals want to save as many people from irreligion as possible. So we get this sort of sacrificial life-style martyrdom claim. This idea that since atheism permeates so much of society, they will never be able to live in the world they desire (a religious exclusive world & government), so they are presumably working towards sparing some generation 100 years from now that they won't get to see.

We are more alike than you think.
salam.morcos
Posts: 51
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 4:56:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think obsession is good! Many people live their lives just believing whatever they were born with. When I became a Christian, that didn't change my obsession with religions. If I argue and someone else is wrong, why can't the opposite be true. If I die and I turn out to be wrong, I will at least have genuinely tried. That's why I gave a chance to every religion or no religion out there in the world.

But in reality, most people believe emotionally but claim that they believe rationally. A bad experience with a priest can make someone an atheist, and a nice Christian person can cause an atheist to believe. My concern however is that most people take a position and stop considering the possibility that they might be wrong. I don't agree to that, that's why obsession is good.

Once a muslim person asked me it's ok that he preaches to me, and I said sure. He said: really? It's not surprising that a Christian said the same thing when I said sure. And atheist were just as surprised, and I've watched movies and documentaries at their request.

What I'm trying to say here is that the right kind of obsession is good. And I don't mean the obsession too convert, but the obsession to reconsider what you already believe in.
ironslippers
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 5:17:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Before I became a believer, I don't recall ever having anything against religion or Christianity. I could honestly say, I was free from religion. Not an obsessed bone in my body. If I wasn't a Christian now, I don't think I would bother with any religious internet discussions.

When someone from time to time would present the Gospel to me, it didn't bother me one bit. I didn't feel imposed upon. My thought, if anything was, I don't agree with this person, but at least they are apparently concerned with my soul. But the fact of the matter was, after our brief encounter, it was over. It was just like waiting in line at a supermarket. We don't live to wait in supermarket lines. But we persevere through it because after we're handed our grocery bag and receipt (we have to pay 10 cents for a grocery bag where I live), we can forget all about the waiting experience (including the person at a product promotional table trying to sell you something you don't want). And that's what I did after every encounter with a Christian who gave me the Gospel message. It was brief, and once it was over, that's it. Imposing religion upon me? Hardly.

What is very obvious however, is that there are many non-religious folk, absolutely obsessed with religion. Some in even a more occupational capacity (activist organizations). I know that the alleged reason is that these obsessed individuals want to save as many people from religion as possible. So we get this sort of sacrificial life-style martyrdom claim. This idea that since religion permeates so much of society, they will never be able to live in the world they desire (a religious free world), so they are presumably working towards sparing some generation 100 years from now that they won't get to see.

Life is an investment. Investment in who we are as a person belief: health, wealth, politic, psychology, religion (pro or con), relationships, etc and as any one would investing they are betting positive returns. The more heavily invested in their beliefs one is the more defensive one becomes to protect their beliefs, and instead of considering diversification one may become cemented in their beliefs by ego, going from defensiveness to the point of offensiveness, thus creating a defensive counter part in those that they interact with. And the cycle begins...

If speaking of this forum specifically, consider that many posters are under 25yrs old they have just began their "own" experience of life and through trial and error most will make personal adjustments to their view of the world and in another 25yrs they will experience both the miraculous and the logical.
Everyone stands on their own dung hill and speaks out about someone else's - Nathan Krusemark
Its easier to criticize and hate than it is to support and create - I Ron Slippers
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 5:47:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There are many non-religious folk, absolutely obsessed with religion.

Recently we saw a conflation of objection to religious activity with a psychological disorder [http://www.debate.org...]. Today we are treated to the unqualified proposition that systematically critiquing religious belief or objecting to religious behaviour betokens obsession.

So let's have another round of religious ad-hominems trying to evade religious accountability, shall we?

In a live-and-let-live world, such allegations might have some superficial appeal. We don't need to criticise tomato-lovers for what food they eat, for example, so why criticise religion?

However, there are three problems with this:

1) Religious paternalism has never endorsed, and can seldom tolerate a live and let live society. Infants are circumcised for theological reasons; children educated theologically; we are treated to religious advertising and subjected to religious discrimination; women are told theologically how they must or may not reproduce; adults are told theologically what they may or may not eat, how they may or may not have sex and whom they may or may not marry; whole societies are told what they may and may not believe, and what artistic and verbal expression they may and may not indulge in. So many religions are neck-deep in social manipulations predicated on unsubstantiated claims to intellectual and moral authority, they have financial and political investment in sustaining such authority (earned or not), and their claims are rife with corrupt and unacknowledged conflicts of interest;

2) A key benefit of intellectual freedoms such as free speech is that bad ideas are contested. Theology claims to be an authoritative account for reality. It holds enormous sway over the way some people behave, and so intellectually, its thought should be accountable to public scrutiny, just as every claim to authority should be -- that's how a free democracy is sustained;

3) The same bodies of theological thought that claim intellectual and moral authority always resist being held to account for these claims and their exercise. So one comes to expect ad-hominem rebuttals when accountability is demanded.

Religion should be critiqued because it's ideological, political, manipulative and frequently corrupt. Its accountability isn't simply to its adherents, but to anyone affected by anything adherents and their leaders do for ideological or political reasons -- and frequently, that's the whole of society.

And moreover, the idea that everyone who criticises religion wants a world without it is outright false. It's a straw-man.

For one thing, the harshest and most strident critics of faith are often current or former adherents. For example, while atheists are often blamed for such critique, some 75% of atheists were formerly people of faith. For another, there are those among even the most outspoken opponents of religion who recognise that humans may be a religiously-inclined species.

So the central question for many critics isn't whether religion should exist, but how it should conduct itself. And the recalcitrantly bad behaviour of religion, and its frequent failures to admit error, ignorance and harm, explain very clearly why it must continue to writhe and attack, as we have seen in this thread.

Because if it ever stood still long enough to admit the full scope and reasons for its intellectual and moral failures, its credibility would surely be shredded.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 6:03:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Most people would have an easier time accepting faith if they realized that deep down they already agreed with it, they just never understood it to begin with.

People will kill each other in the name of tolerance and dispute over things they already agree on.

The problem is not religion or irreligion.

The problem is that little to no actual communication actually is going on. The problem is that people aren't being totally honest. The problem is that people would rather fight each other than come to common ground. The problem is that people have no respect for each other, and it keeps them from seeing the obvious.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 6:31:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Before I became a believer, I don't recall ever having anything against religion or Christianity. I could honestly say, I was free from religion. Not an obsessed bone in my body. If I wasn't a Christian now, I don't think I would bother with any religious internet discussions.

When someone from time to time would present the Gospel to me, it didn't bother me one bit. I didn't feel imposed upon. My thought, if anything was, I don't agree with this person, but at least they are apparently concerned with my soul. But the fact of the matter was, after our brief encounter, it was over. It was just like waiting in line at a supermarket. We don't live to wait in supermarket lines. But we persevere through it because after we're handed our grocery bag and receipt (we have to pay 10 cents for a grocery bag where I live), we can forget all about the waiting experience (including the person at a product promotional table trying to sell you something you don't want). And that's what I did after every encounter with a Christian who gave me the Gospel message. It was brief, and once it was over, that's it. Imposing religion upon me? Hardly.

What is very obvious however, is that there are many non-religious folk, absolutely obsessed with religion. Some in even a more occupational capacity (activist organizations). I know that the alleged reason is that these obsessed individuals want to save as many people from religion as possible. So we get this sort of sacrificial life-style martyrdom claim. This idea that since religion permeates so much of society, they will never be able to live in the world they desire (a religious free world), so they are presumably working towards sparing some generation 100 years from now that they won't get to see.

All people have a passion of some kind. That passion becomes their obsession.
It makes no difference if its religion, science, sports, art or anything else. Humans are passionate creatures and will fight for whatever they are passionate about because they all believe their object of passion is the "bees knees" and they simply can't understand anyone who does not share their passion or perspective.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2015 6:38:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Before I became a believer, I don't recall ever having anything against religion or Christianity. I could honestly say, I was free from religion. Not an obsessed bone in my body. If I wasn't a Christian now, I don't think I would bother with any religious internet discussions.

When someone from time to time would present the Gospel to me, it didn't bother me one bit. I didn't feel imposed upon. My thought, if anything was, I don't agree with this person, but at least they are apparently concerned with my soul. But the fact of the matter was, after our brief encounter, it was over. It was just like waiting in line at a supermarket. We don't live to wait in supermarket lines. But we persevere through it because after we're handed our grocery bag and receipt (we have to pay 10 cents for a grocery bag where I live), we can forget all about the waiting experience (including the person at a product promotional table trying to sell you something you don't want). And that's what I did after every encounter with a Christian who gave me the Gospel message. It was brief, and once it was over, that's it. Imposing religion upon me? Hardly.

What is very obvious however, is that there are many non-religious folk, absolutely obsessed with religion. Some in even a more occupational capacity (activist organizations). I know that the alleged reason is that these obsessed individuals want to save as many people from religion as possible. So we get this sort of sacrificial life-style martyrdom claim. This idea that since religion permeates so much of society, they will never be able to live in the world they desire (a religious free world), so they are presumably working towards sparing some generation 100 years from now that they won't get to see.

I have had numerous mormons and JV's come to my door, but never Richard Dawkins.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 12:34:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 4:33:41 PM, Envisage wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Before I became a believer, I don't recall ever having anything against religion or Christianity. I could honestly say, I was free from religion. Not an obsessed bone in my body. If I wasn't a Christian now, I don't think I would bother with any religious internet discussions.

When someone from time to time would present the Gospel to me, it didn't bother me one bit. I didn't feel imposed upon. My thought, if anything was, I don't agree with this person, but at least they are apparently concerned with my soul. But the fact of the matter was, after our brief encounter, it was over. It was just like waiting in line at a supermarket. We don't live to wait in supermarket lines. But we persevere through it because after we're handed our grocery bag and receipt (we have to pay 10 cents for a grocery bag where I live), we can forget all about the waiting experience (including the person at a product promotional table trying to sell you something you don't want). And that's what I did after every encounter with a Christian who gave me the Gospel message. It was brief, and once it was over, that's it. Imposing religion upon me? Hardly.

What is very obvious however, is that there are many non-religious folk, absolutely obsessed with religion. Some in even a more occupational capacity (activist organizations). I know that the alleged reason is that these obsessed individuals want to save as many people from religion as possible. So we get this sort of sacrificial life-style martyrdom claim. This idea that since religion permeates so much of society, they will never be able to live in the world they desire (a religious free world), so they are presumably working towards sparing some generation 100 years from now that they won't get to see.

Before I became a non-believer, I don't recall ever having anything against atheism or Secularism. I could honestly say, I was free with religion. Not an obsessed bone in my body. If I wasn't an atheist now, I don't think I would bother with any religious internet discussions.

When someone from time to time would present anti-theistic material to me, it didn't bother me one bit. I didn't feel imposed upon. My thought, if anything was, I don't agree with this person, but at least they are apparently concerned with people's belief systems. But the fact of the matter was, after our brief encounter, it was over. It was just like waiting in line at a supermarket. We don't live to wait in supermarket lines. But we persevere through it because after we're handed our grocery bag and receipt (we have to pay 10 cents for a grocery bag where I live), we can forget all about the waiting experience (including the person at a product promotional table trying to sell you something you don't want). And that's what I did after every encounter with an atheist who gave me the secular message. It was brief, and once it was over, that's it. Imposing anti-religion upon me? Hardly.

What is very obvious however, is that there are many religious folk, absolutely obsessed with atheism/secularism. Some in even a more occupational capacity (organised religions, imposition of one's religious values). I know that the alleged reason is that these obsessed individuals want to save as many people from irreligion as possible. So we get this sort of sacrificial life-style martyrdom claim. This idea that since atheism permeates so much of society, they will never be able to live in the world they desire (a religious exclusive world & government), so they are presumably working towards sparing some generation 100 years from now that they won't get to see.

We are more alike than you think.
I don't know that we are. I don't claim that every atheist who frequents a religious forum is obsessed with religion. I think there are some that are. Or certainly at least to appear to be obsessed. But I have no clue as to where your personal interest in religious discussion lies.

In my opinion, I think the picture perfect example of atheist obsession with religion would be a member of a group like the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 1:09:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 5:47:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There are many non-religious folk, absolutely obsessed with religion.

Recently we saw a conflation of objection to religious activity with a psychological disorder [http://www.debate.org...]. Today we are treated to the unqualified proposition that systematically critiquing religious belief or objecting to religious behaviour betokens obsession.

So let's have another round of religious ad-hominems trying to evade religious accountability, shall we?

In a live-and-let-live world, such allegations might have some superficial appeal. We don't need to criticise tomato-lovers for what food they eat, for example, so why criticise religion?

However, there are three problems with this:

1) Religious paternalism has never endorsed, and can seldom tolerate a live and let live society. Infants are circumcised for theological reasons; children educated theologically; we are treated to religious advertising and subjected to religious discrimination; women are told theologically how they must or may not reproduce; adults are told theologically what they may or may not eat, how they may or may not have sex and whom they may or may not marry; whole societies are told what they may and may not believe, and what artistic and verbal expression they may and may not indulge in. So many religions are neck-deep in social manipulations predicated on unsubstantiated claims to intellectual and moral authority, they have financial and political investment in sustaining such authority (earned or not), and their claims are rife with corrupt and unacknowledged conflicts of interest;

2) A key benefit of intellectual freedoms such as free speech is that bad ideas are contested. Theology claims to be an authoritative account for reality. It holds enormous sway over the way some people behave, and so intellectually, its thought should be accountable to public scrutiny, just as every claim to authority should be -- that's how a free democracy is sustained;

3) The same bodies of theological thought that claim intellectual and moral authority always resist being held to account for these claims and their exercise. So one comes to expect ad-hominem rebuttals when accountability is demanded.

Religion should be critiqued because it's ideological, political, manipulative and frequently corrupt. Its accountability isn't simply to its adherents, but to anyone affected by anything adherents and their leaders do for ideological or political reasons -- and frequently, that's the whole of society.

And moreover, the idea that everyone who criticises religion wants a world without it is outright false. It's a straw-man.

For one thing, the harshest and most strident critics of faith are often current or former adherents. For example, while atheists are often blamed for such critique, some 75% of atheists were formerly people of faith. For another, there are those among even the most outspoken opponents of religion who recognise that humans may be a religiously-inclined species.

So the central question for many critics isn't whether religion should exist, but how it should conduct itself. And the recalcitrantly bad behaviour of religion, and its frequent failures to admit error, ignorance and harm, explain very clearly why it must continue to writhe and attack, as we have seen in this thread.

Because if it ever stood still long enough to admit the full scope and reasons for its intellectual and moral failures, its credibility would surely be shredded.
I just pointed out in a prior post, I make no claim that every atheist who frequents a religious forum is obsessed with religion. I'll add to that by stating that I make no claim that everyone who critiques religion is obsessed, or wants to see religion removed from society. However......there are a good number of people that do at least express a desire to see religion removed from society. I might say....someone like that could be obsessed with religion.


This may surprise you, but in a way, I think the world would be better off without religion. I'll explain....

The word religion has a negative connotation even among Christians. Adherence to a religious system, even in the form of Judeo-Christianity, and adherence to God are 2 different things. One can follow the rules of a Judeo-Christian religious system, and go the polar opposite of the direction of the Living God. The apostle Paul's shift from religion ordained persecution, to following the guidance of the Holy Spirit would be a good example.

Awhile back we had a discussion on the founding fathers of the U.S. in relation to a Christian theocracy. I maintained that the Christians of that day.....up until now did/do not support a Christian theocracy. However, I could easily place an asterisk there. It really depends on what one means by theocracy. The founding fathers supported the idea of each man seeking guidance directly from the Creator Himself. The idea being that if each man received guidance directly from the creator of the universe (as opposed to blindly following the lead of their denomination), good could only come from that type of guidance. If everyone adhered to such a practice, they would in a sense, have a theocracy. But, the right type of theocracy because the ruling force would be the Creator of the Universe. So to myself, the removal of religion does not equate to the removal of God. Just the opposite. But to many, the removal of religion means the removal of God from society.

You make an interesting comment here in relation to religion dictating sexual practice.

"how they may or may not have sex"

I feel pretty safe to say that you believe in placing certain restrictions on sexual activity. Or am I wrong?
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 1:21:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 4:56:02 PM, salam.morcos wrote:
I think obsession is good! Many people live their lives just believing whatever they were born with. When I became a Christian, that didn't change my obsession with religions. If I argue and someone else is wrong, why can't the opposite be true. If I die and I turn out to be wrong, I will at least have genuinely tried. That's why I gave a chance to every religion or no religion out there in the world.

But in reality, most people believe emotionally but claim that they believe rationally. A bad experience with a priest can make someone an atheist, and a nice Christian person can cause an atheist to believe. My concern however is that most people take a position and stop considering the possibility that they might be wrong. I don't agree to that, that's why obsession is good.

Once a muslim person asked me it's ok that he preaches to me, and I said sure. He said: really? It's not surprising that a Christian said the same thing when I said sure. And atheist were just as surprised, and I've watched movies and documentaries at their request.

What I'm trying to say here is that the right kind of obsession is good. And I don't mean the obsession too convert, but the obsession to reconsider what you already believe in.
I did present my non-obsession with religion before becoming a believer as ideal. However, I believe God was able to grab my attention in spite of my non-obsession. Maybe my non-obsession was somehow a catalyst in my becoming a believer.

I honestly believe a number of obsessed atheists will become believers. That their obsession will be a catalyst that will lead them to truth. So in that sense, obsession from my perspective would certainly be positive if used as a catalyst in bringing an atheist to Christ.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2015 1:39:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/15/2015 1:09:43 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
At 7/14/2015 5:47:52 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
There are many non-religious folk, absolutely obsessed with religion.
Recently we saw a conflation of objection to religious activity with a psychological disorder [http://www.debate.org...]. Today we are treated to the unqualified proposition that systematically critiquing religious belief or objecting to religious behaviour betokens obsession.

In a live-and-let-live world, such allegations might have some superficial appeal.

However, there are three problems with this:

1) Religious paternalism has never endorsed, and can seldom tolerate a live and let live society.
...

The word religion has a negative connotation even among Christians. Adherence to a religious system, even in the form of Judeo-Christianity, and adherence to God are 2 different things.
Yes, hence the split between Catholicism and Protestantism in Western Europe. However Protestantism still has canon; the canon and its interpretation still lack both authority and accountability; and Protestant hegemonists have been no less persecutory, xenophobic and self-interested than the clerical princehoods they (quite rightly) sought to dismantle.

You make an interesting comment here in relation to religion dictating sexual practice.
"how they may or may not have sex"
I feel pretty safe to say that you believe in placing certain restrictions on sexual activity. Or am I wrong?

Aside from risking running off-topic, Roderick, this is an excluded middle argument.

Support for morality and care for one's fellow man is not support for morality by revelation. Part of the problem with religion is that many religious either cannot see or will not acknowledge that secular morality -- a pro-active, compassionate, informed and accountable concern for the well-being one's fellow man -- is even possible.

Since the sect of Christianity you most frequently defend is militantly anti-secular, I don't expect you to agree with the proposition. For our purposes though, it's sufficient to note that many people do see moral alternatives to theological paternalism, and that rather than discussing and exploring them, many religious adherents dismiss and ignore them.

Were that not the case, there'd be a lot less to critique about religion, I believe.
mjplatt
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 9:40:30 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Before I became a believer, I don't recall ever having anything against religion or Christianity. I could honestly say, I was free from religion. Not an obsessed bone in my body. If I wasn't a Christian now, I don't think I would bother with any religious internet discussions.

When someone from time to time would present the Gospel to me, it didn't bother me one bit. I didn't feel imposed upon. My thought, if anything was, I don't agree with this person, but at least they are apparently concerned with my soul. But the fact of the matter was, after our brief encounter, it was over. It was just like waiting in line at a supermarket. We don't live to wait in supermarket lines. But we persevere through it because after we're handed our grocery bag and receipt (we have to pay 10 cents for a grocery bag where I live), we can forget all about the waiting experience (including the person at a product promotional table trying to sell you something you don't want). And that's what I did after every encounter with a Christian who gave me the Gospel message. It was brief, and once it was over, that's it. Imposing religion upon me? Hardly.

What is very obvious however, is that there are many non-religious folk, absolutely obsessed with religion. Some in even a more occupational capacity (activist organizations). I know that the alleged reason is that these obsessed individuals want to save as many people from religion as possible. So we get this sort of sacrificial life-style martyrdom claim. This idea that since religion permeates so much of society, they will never be able to live in the world they desire (a religious free world), so they are presumably working towards sparing some generation 100 years from now that they won't get to see.

So atheists are the same emotionally as believers....what's your point?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 9:59:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 6:03:28 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Most people would have an easier time accepting faith if they realized that deep down they already agreed with it, they just never understood it to begin with.

What a crock. I don't pretend to speak for anyone else but I had faith and reason finally showed me what a flimsy thing it was. Religious faith is a mirage, a reflection of something that seems real but is not. Those who claim to 'understand' it as you do are simply accepting the mirage because it's a lot prettier than the sand dunes it is masking.

People will kill each other in the name of tolerance and dispute over things they already agree on.

The problem is not religion or irreligion.

The problem is that little to no actual communication actually is going on. The problem is that people aren't being totally honest. The problem is that people would rather fight each other than come to common ground. The problem is that people have no respect for each other, and it keeps them from seeing the obvious.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:06:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 9:59:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/14/2015 6:03:28 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Most people would have an easier time accepting faith if they realized that deep down they already agreed with it, they just never understood it to begin with.

What a crock. I don't pretend to speak for anyone else but I had faith and reason finally showed me what a flimsy thing it was. Religious faith is a mirage, a reflection of something that seems real but is not. Those who claim to 'understand' it as you do are simply accepting the mirage because it's a lot prettier than the sand dunes it is masking.

You seem to have an awful lot of faith in your current understanding.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:10:01 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 10:06:41 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:59:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/14/2015 6:03:28 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Most people would have an easier time accepting faith if they realized that deep down they already agreed with it, they just never understood it to begin with.

What a crock. I don't pretend to speak for anyone else but I had faith and reason finally showed me what a flimsy thing it was. Religious faith is a mirage, a reflection of something that seems real but is not. Those who claim to 'understand' it as you do are simply accepting the mirage because it's a lot prettier than the sand dunes it is masking.

You seem to have an awful lot of faith in your current understanding.

I have a lot of factual evidence to support my current understanding. There, fixed it for you.
graceofgod
Posts: 5,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:12:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Before I became a believer, I don't recall ever having anything against religion or Christianity. I could honestly say, I was free from religion. Not an obsessed bone in my body. If I wasn't a Christian now, I don't think I would bother with any religious internet discussions.

When someone from time to time would present the Gospel to me, it didn't bother me one bit. I didn't feel imposed upon. My thought, if anything was, I don't agree with this person, but at least they are apparently concerned with my soul. But the fact of the matter was, after our brief encounter, it was over. It was just like waiting in line at a supermarket. We don't live to wait in supermarket lines. But we persevere through it because after we're handed our grocery bag and receipt (we have to pay 10 cents for a grocery bag where I live), we can forget all about the waiting experience (including the person at a product promotional table trying to sell you something you don't want). And that's what I did after every encounter with a Christian who gave me the Gospel message. It was brief, and once it was over, that's it. Imposing religion upon me? Hardly.

What is very obvious however, is that there are many non-religious folk, absolutely obsessed with religion. Some in even a more occupational capacity (activist organizations). I know that the alleged reason is that these obsessed individuals want to save as many people from religion as possible. So we get this sort of sacrificial life-style martyrdom claim. This idea that since religion permeates so much of society, they will never be able to live in the world they desire (a religious free world), so they are presumably working towards sparing some generation 100 years from now that they won't get to see.

I know exactly what you mean my many years on forums have shown me that those who would call so called bible bashers are the ones who shout louder than anyone against religion..
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:12:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 10:10:01 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:06:41 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:59:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/14/2015 6:03:28 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Most people would have an easier time accepting faith if they realized that deep down they already agreed with it, they just never understood it to begin with.

What a crock. I don't pretend to speak for anyone else but I had faith and reason finally showed me what a flimsy thing it was. Religious faith is a mirage, a reflection of something that seems real but is not. Those who claim to 'understand' it as you do are simply accepting the mirage because it's a lot prettier than the sand dunes it is masking.

You seem to have an awful lot of faith in your current understanding.

I have a lot of factual evidence to support my current understanding. There, fixed it for you.

No you don't.

Oh you do?

Show me your factual evidence, and I will show you how you are misinformed.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:25:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 10:12:53 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:10:01 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:06:41 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:59:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/14/2015 6:03:28 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Most people would have an easier time accepting faith if they realized that deep down they already agreed with it, they just never understood it to begin with.

What a crock. I don't pretend to speak for anyone else but I had faith and reason finally showed me what a flimsy thing it was. Religious faith is a mirage, a reflection of something that seems real but is not. Those who claim to 'understand' it as you do are simply accepting the mirage because it's a lot prettier than the sand dunes it is masking.

You seem to have an awful lot of faith in your current understanding.

I have a lot of factual evidence to support my current understanding. There, fixed it for you.

No you don't.

Oh you do?

Show me your factual evidence, and I will show you how you are misinformed.

Fact: No evidence of any Tower of Babel.
Fact: No evidence of a global flood.
Fact: No evidence of either the enslavement of the Judean people or of their supposed Exodus from Egypt.
Fact: No evidence the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.
Fact: No evidence for the Resurrection.

There are a few. Let me know how I am misinformed?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 10:49:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Before I became a believer, I don't recall ever having anything against religion or Christianity. I could honestly say, I was free from religion. Not an obsessed bone in my body. If I wasn't a Christian now, I don't think I would bother with any religious internet discussions.

There was a time when I was completely turned off religion by the hypocrisy I saw in the mainline, and most other churches, who gave lip service to Christianity, but as scripture describes them "proved false to it's power".

That is why I am 100% sceptical about those who call themselves Christian.

For instance, do you believe what Christ and the Apostles taught?

If so you cannot believe the Trinity or anything similar.

Why?

Because Christ himself declared even after his resurrection, that he has a God, who is also his father (John 20:17), to whom he consistently gave all glory throughout his ministry, even down to making his name well and truly known to the people he preached to, (John 17:6).

Why?

Because like the Apostles after him he realise that salvation could only come from his father. He also knew it was his role to perform the sacrifice which would make it legal and possible for that salvation to come from his father.

The Apostles continually praised his father over and above Christ himself, and also attributed salvation to that father, through his son's sacrifice. (1 Peter 1:3; Ephesians 1:3 etc.).

Also, have you ever wondered why they are called Father and son?


When someone from time to time would present the Gospel to me, it didn't bother me one bit. I didn't feel imposed upon. My thought, if anything was, I don't agree with this person, but at least they are apparently concerned with my soul. But the fact of the matter was, after our brief encounter, it was over. It was just like waiting in line at a supermarket. We don't live to wait in supermarket lines. But we persevere through it because after we're handed our grocery bag and receipt (we have to pay 10 cents for a grocery bag where I live), we can forget all about the waiting experience (including the person at a product promotional table trying to sell you something you don't want). And that's what I did after every encounter with a Christian who gave me the Gospel message. It was brief, and once it was over, that's it. Imposing religion upon me? Hardly.

What is very obvious however, is that there are many non-religious folk, absolutely obsessed with religion. Some in even a more occupational capacity (activist organizations). I know that the alleged reason is that these obsessed individuals want to save as many people from religion as possible. So we get this sort of sacrificial life-style martyrdom claim. This idea that since religion permeates so much of society, they will never be able to live in the world they desire (a religious free world), so they are presumably working towards sparing some generation 100 years from now that they won't get to see.

I do not know if it is still the case, but it is not so long back that the majority of those teaching Divinity in universities, leading to a qualification as a Doctor of Divinity were themselves atheists. What chance of being taught the truth when being taught by someone who doesn't believe it is the truth?.

No, there is only one source of thth.

God's word the BIble.

And there is only one organisation which teaches it, the one to whom he has given his great and holy name, Jehovah's Witnesses.

A name which also describes the role they fulfill in imitation of ISrael whilst it was faithful, Christ, and the Apostles.

After all, did not eve Paul remind us how important that name is at Romans 10:13-15
ASV(i) 13 for, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? 15 and how shall they preach, except they be sent? even as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

Do you know that name? Or have you been fooled into thinking that the name of his son will do?

Yes I am obsessed with religion, but only one religion, the religion of Christ and the Apostles, the true worship of "The God and Father of out Lord Jesus Christ", Jehovah.

Why?

because only that religion can bring us the eternal life on a restored paradise earth, the original purpose of mankind, that is now our due, as long as we remain faithful to that one, and his son.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 11:57:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 10:25:36 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:12:53 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:10:01 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:06:41 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:59:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/14/2015 6:03:28 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Most people would have an easier time accepting faith if they realized that deep down they already agreed with it, they just never understood it to begin with.

What a crock. I don't pretend to speak for anyone else but I had faith and reason finally showed me what a flimsy thing it was. Religious faith is a mirage, a reflection of something that seems real but is not. Those who claim to 'understand' it as you do are simply accepting the mirage because it's a lot prettier than the sand dunes it is masking.

You seem to have an awful lot of faith in your current understanding.

I have a lot of factual evidence to support my current understanding. There, fixed it for you.

No you don't.

Oh you do?

Show me your factual evidence, and I will show you how you are misinformed.

Fact: No evidence of any Tower of Babel.

The tower of Babel is an allegorical story about how when chaos finds a complete order, it descends back into chaos.

When everyone starts to speak the same language, the language is destined to schism into incoherent babble.

If you want a contemporary example of this, look at the internet and how much of an impact it has had on people's ability to communicate. At first glance, it might look like it is connecting us in ways that were never possible.. But really, it is doing a great deal to destroy the art of communication. People talk over each other, it's difficult to even finish a sentence. People don't listen to each other, they are too busy thinking about what they are going to say next. People fight over things they agree on. It has completely sabotaged this current generations ability to communicate effectively. It has made the generation gap a great deal wider.

The illusion is that it connects us together, but in actuality it is driving people apart.

Fact: No evidence of a global flood.

The flood myth seems to be fairly universal, even among cultures that shouldn't have been able to have contact with each other. I wouldn't say that there is NO evidence.

Fact: No evidence of either the enslavement of the Judean people or of their supposed Exodus from Egypt.

If it did happen, it probably didn't happen exactly like it did in the the scripture, but scripture is not intended to be a strict historical accounting of things.

There are extra biblical accounts by ancient a historian in Egyptian that speak of driving foreigners from Canaan out due to the belief that they were causing plagues. There are a few other stories that loosely correlate.

Fact: No evidence the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

I see no reason to believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Fact: No evidence for the Resurrection.

There are plenty of accounts, but being that it falls in the category of mythology under the historic method, it doesn't fit the criteria for historicity.

There are a few. Let me know how I am misinformed?

You think that the bible is supposed to be something it isn't.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:02:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Before I became a believer, I don't recall ever having anything against religion or Christianity. I could honestly say, I was free from religion. Not an obsessed bone in my body. If I wasn't a Christian now, I don't think I would bother with any religious internet discussions.

When someone from time to time would present the Gospel to me, it didn't bother me one bit. I didn't feel imposed upon. My thought, if anything was, I don't agree with this person, but at least they are apparently concerned with my soul. But the fact of the matter was, after our brief encounter, it was over. It was just like waiting in line at a supermarket. We don't live to wait in supermarket lines. But we persevere through it because after we're handed our grocery bag and receipt (we have to pay 10 cents for a grocery bag where I live), we can forget all about the waiting experience (including the person at a product promotional table trying to sell you something you don't want). And that's what I did after every encounter with a Christian who gave me the Gospel message. It was brief, and once it was over, that's it. Imposing religion upon me? Hardly.

What is very obvious however, is that there are many non-religious folk, absolutely obsessed with religion. Some in even a more occupational capacity (activist organizations). I know that the alleged reason is that these obsessed individuals want to save as many people from religion as possible. So we get this sort of sacrificial life-style martyrdom claim. This idea that since religion permeates so much of society, they will never be able to live in the world they desire (a religious free world), so they are presumably working towards sparing some generation 100 years from now that they won't get to see.

I actually frequent this forum with the expectation that I can have an interesting discussion about religion, either with religious people, or atheists, because I find religion to be both fascinating and necessary. Theists often offer me at least a mildly enlightened parlay; atheists are more disappointing. As I can recall, I've had some interesting conversations with both RuvDraba and Envisage, but I think that this is because they are intellectually honest and decently educated on the topic of conversation. This is, unfortunately, not the norm as far as atheism goes. I am disappointed to find that atheism is becoming increasingly recalcitrant and myopic as it is wrapped into an overarching, prepackaged political and moral ideology, complete with it's false history, its propaganda, and even nascent atheist 'churches.'

Probably the best example of this is the anti-Islamic movement. I don't claim that Islam is perfect by any means, but its problems are specific, and though difficult, they are ultimately remediable. However, the websites dedicated to 'free thinking', for example, do not offer nuanced critiques and detailed, honest historical analysis. They offer blatant misquotes of sacred texts, and outright historical distortion, and it has been my experience that the vast majority of atheists, when made aware of these misgivings, hold to dogma instead of reassessing the merit of their sources. They do this because they are pursuing a specific conclusion and looking only for evidence which supports that conclusion, and if they cannot find it, they are perfectly willing to fabricate it. This is abject delusion, and in my mind surrenders the moral and intellectual high ground which so many atheists lay claim to.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:29:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 11:57:41 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:25:36 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:12:53 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:10:01 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:06:41 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:59:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/14/2015 6:03:28 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Most people would have an easier time accepting faith if they realized that deep down they already agreed with it, they just never understood it to begin with.

What a crock. I don't pretend to speak for anyone else but I had faith and reason finally showed me what a flimsy thing it was. Religious faith is a mirage, a reflection of something that seems real but is not. Those who claim to 'understand' it as you do are simply accepting the mirage because it's a lot prettier than the sand dunes it is masking.

You seem to have an awful lot of faith in your current understanding.

I have a lot of factual evidence to support my current understanding. There, fixed it for you.

No you don't.

Oh you do?

Show me your factual evidence, and I will show you how you are misinformed.

Fact: No evidence of any Tower of Babel.

The tower of Babel is an allegorical story about how when chaos finds a complete order, it descends back into chaos.

When everyone starts to speak the same language, the language is destined to schism into incoherent babble.

If you want a contemporary example of this, look at the internet and how much of an impact it has had on people's ability to communicate. At first glance, it might look like it is connecting us in ways that were never possible.. But really, it is doing a great deal to destroy the art of communication. People talk over each other, it's difficult to even finish a sentence. People don't listen to each other, they are too busy thinking about what they are going to say next. People fight over things they agree on. It has completely sabotaged this current generations ability to communicate effectively. It has made the generation gap a great deal wider.

The illusion is that it connects us together, but in actuality it is driving people apart.


Fact: No evidence of a global flood.

The flood myth seems to be fairly universal, even among cultures that shouldn't have been able to have contact with each other. I wouldn't say that there is NO evidence.

Fact: No evidence of either the enslavement of the Judean people or of their supposed Exodus from Egypt.

If it did happen, it probably didn't happen exactly like it did in the the scripture, but scripture is not intended to be a strict historical accounting of things.

There are extra biblical accounts by ancient a historian in Egyptian that speak of driving foreigners from Canaan out due to the belief that they were causing plagues. There are a few other stories that loosely correlate.

Fact: No evidence the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

I see no reason to believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Fact: No evidence for the Resurrection.

Wrong, there is the eyewitness evidence of at least two witnesses.


There are plenty of accounts, but being that it falls in the category of mythology under the historic method, it doesn't fit the criteria for historicity.

So how do you explain it's historical accuracy then, since not one thing in it has ever been demonstrably proven wrong.

Especially since some of it's "history" was written many years in advance, of which fact there is archaeological evidence, most notably in the Cyrus Cylinder, and some is still coming true even today, and will continue to do so.


There are a few. Let me know how I am misinformed?

You think that the bible is supposed to be something it isn't.

It is supposed to be exactly what it was, is an will be. A record of the development of Jehovah's plan to get his creation back on track after Satan corrupted Adam and Eve.. From Genesis to Revelation it never departs from that record, and we are still on course for that day even now, getting ever closer to the beginning of the final stage of the plan.

Sorry, but any book that can get even what few details it provides for the origins of life correct, as Genesis 1 does when read with your power of reason turned up full, can only be the product of the creator himself.

I can imagine what you are going to say about that. It has been said so many times before, but I shall happily show you how you are misreading it if you get stuck.

To me, that is absolute proof, as it should be to any who read it with their minds in gear, on "4 wheel drive". You need that to negotiate the bits most people get completely wrong, lol.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:45:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 11:57:41 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:25:36 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:12:53 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:10:01 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:06:41 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:59:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/14/2015 6:03:28 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Most people would have an easier time accepting faith if they realized that deep down they already agreed with it, they just never understood it to begin with.

What a crock. I don't pretend to speak for anyone else but I had faith and reason finally showed me what a flimsy thing it was. Religious faith is a mirage, a reflection of something that seems real but is not. Those who claim to 'understand' it as you do are simply accepting the mirage because it's a lot prettier than the sand dunes it is masking.

You seem to have an awful lot of faith in your current understanding.

I have a lot of factual evidence to support my current understanding. There, fixed it for you.

No you don't.

Oh you do?

Show me your factual evidence, and I will show you how you are misinformed.

Fact: No evidence of any Tower of Babel.

The tower of Babel is an allegorical story about how when chaos finds a complete order, it descends back into chaos.

No it is not. Ift is proof that had God let things stand as they were back then we would have been destroying the earth as a home for life, just as we are now, when God's plan is far enough advanced to cover for it.

In other words Babel was a delaying tactic by Jehovah.


When everyone starts to speak the same language, the language is destined to schism into incoherent babble.

That is an unwarranted assumption. and a "cop-out" explanation to excuse yourself from not believing God's word.


If you want a contemporary example of this, look at the internet and how much of an impact it has had on people's ability to communicate. At first glance, it might look like it is connecting us in ways that were never possible.. But really, it is doing a great deal to destroy the art of communication. People talk over each other, it's difficult to even finish a sentence. People don't listen to each other, they are too busy thinking about what they are going to say next. People fight over things they agree on. It has completely sabotaged this current generations ability to communicate effectively. It has made the generation gap a great deal wider.

The internet has made people's ability to communicate so much easier and clearer, and continues to do so.

People have always fought over things that they didn't realise they agrees on. History attests to that.


The illusion is that it connects us together, but in actuality it is driving people apart.


Fact: No evidence of a global flood.

The flood myth seems to be fairly universal, even among cultures that shouldn't have been able to have contact with each other. I wouldn't say that there is NO evidence.

And yet you fail to mention the evidence for a global flood which exists, circumstantial or not.


Fact: No evidence of either the enslavement of the Judean people or of their supposed Exodus from Egypt.

Not all historians agree with you on that one, but then they were not "the Judean people" at that time, nor in fact were they the fore-runners of teh Judean People, Israel..

You seem to forget that Israel was forsaken and allowed to split into two kingdoms.

One of which retained it's original name despite only consisting of 10 tribes.

The other one of which became Judah, and benjamin amalgamated with them.

There was no Israel as a nation from then until 1948, and even that one isn't truly Israel.

How come people are so misinformed about biblical history, and yet they insist on pretending they are not?

Judah was the unfaithful remnant of Israel, preserved only for the sake of the few who were as faithful as they could be in the circumstances, from one family of which would come the Messiah. Once that was achieved Judah was no longer of any use to Jehovah and so was dispersed and effectively destroyed, after the faithful ones had been drawn out into "the Israel of God". (Galatians 6:16).

Like all things no longer of use to God they were discarded, and the same will soon happen to those members of the human race who refuse to be of use to him, at Armageddon.

If it did happen, it probably didn't happen exactly like it did in the the scripture, but scripture is not intended to be a strict historical accounting of things.

Everything that scripture describes, happened as close to how scripture says it did as we need to know.n Scripture is God's word, are you calling him a liar?

Not a sensible move.


There are extra biblical accounts by ancient a historian in Egyptian that speak of driving foreigners from Canaan out due to the belief that they were causing plagues. There are a few other stories that loosely correlate.

Fact: No evidence the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

I see no reason to believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Fact: No evidence for the Resurrection.

There are plenty of accounts, but being that it falls in the category of mythology under the historic method, it doesn't fit the criteria for historicity.

There are a few. Let me know how I am misinformed?

You think that the bible is supposed to be something it isn't.

Every time I read posts on here, Matthew 13:15 is dragged back into my mind. It is as true, if not more so, today than it was back then.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 12:55:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 11:57:41 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:25:36 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:12:53 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:10:01 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/16/2015 10:06:41 AM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
At 7/16/2015 9:59:51 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 7/14/2015 6:03:28 PM, UniversalTheologian wrote:
Most people would have an easier time accepting faith if they realized that deep down they already agreed with it, they just never understood it to begin with.

What a crock. I don't pretend to speak for anyone else but I had faith and reason finally showed me what a flimsy thing it was. Religious faith is a mirage, a reflection of something that seems real but is not. Those who claim to 'understand' it as you do are simply accepting the mirage because it's a lot prettier than the sand dunes it is masking.

You seem to have an awful lot of faith in your current understanding.

I have a lot of factual evidence to support my current understanding. There, fixed it for you.

No you don't.

Oh you do?

Show me your factual evidence, and I will show you how you are misinformed.

Fact: No evidence of any Tower of Babel.

The tower of Babel is an allegorical story about how when chaos finds a complete order, it descends back into chaos.

When everyone starts to speak the same language, the language is destined to schism into incoherent babble.

If you want a contemporary example of this, look at the internet and how much of an impact it has had on people's ability to communicate. At first glance, it might look like it is connecting us in ways that were never possible.. But really, it is doing a great deal to destroy the art of communication. People talk over each other, it's difficult to even finish a sentence. People don't listen to each other, they are too busy thinking about what they are going to say next. People fight over things they agree on. It has completely sabotaged this current generations ability to communicate effectively. It has made the generation gap a great deal wider.

The illusion is that it connects us together, but in actuality it is driving people apart.


Fact: No evidence of a global flood.

The flood myth seems to be fairly universal, even among cultures that shouldn't have been able to have contact with each other. I wouldn't say that there is NO evidence.

I repeat. No evidence of a GLOBAL flood. There is no evidence that all of the mountain ranges of the planet were ever covered completely with water and that every creature except those on a wooden boat died. Please do not equivocate. Local floods could indeed seem to cover the world but that never happened.

Fact: No evidence of either the enslavement of the Judean people or of their supposed Exodus from Egypt.

If it did happen, it probably didn't happen exactly like it did in the the scripture, but scripture is not intended to be a strict historical accounting of things.

There are extra biblical accounts by ancient a historian in Egyptian that speak of driving foreigners from Canaan out due to the belief that they were causing plagues. There are a few other stories that loosely correlate.

Again, equivocation. I'm basically saying that none of the so-called miracles in the Christian holy book happened.

Fact: No evidence the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

I see no reason to believe that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Fact: No evidence for the Resurrection.

There are plenty of accounts, but being that it falls in the category of mythology under the historic method, it doesn't fit the criteria for historicity.

There are a few. Let me know how I am misinformed?

You think that the bible is supposed to be something it isn't.

No, I'm telling you what your holy book says is fact and it is not. If it's nothing but myth and allegory, well, there goes heaven, hell, the Resurrection, redemption, all that good stuff. It become relegated to the same level as every other 'holy' writ of every other religion.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 1:30:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are extra biblical accounts by ancient a historian in Egyptian that speak of driving foreigners from Canaan out due to the belief that they were causing plagues. There are a few other stories that loosely correlate.

I can't find a mention of an account by an egytian historian (I look on the bible-thumping sites were they'd be certainly mention such a thing). So you are probably refering to someting called the 'Ipuyer Papyrus', which comes from - very, very roughly the right time and mentions - amongst other things - a servants revolt and a river running with blood.

Read it for yourselves here.

http://www.reshafim.org.il...

If you concentrate on the 1% that vaguely resembles the story of exodus and ignore the 99% that is completely different it proves beyond doubt the Bible is true. Or not.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2015 8:06:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Before I became a believer, I don't recall ever having anything against religion or Christianity. I could honestly say, I was free from religion. Not an obsessed bone in my body. If I wasn't a Christian now, I don't think I would bother with any religious internet discussions.

Engaging in religious debate is an indication that someone is obsessed with religion just as much as getting up to go running every morning is an indication that someone loves to run.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 9:17:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 12:29:07 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
There are plenty of accounts, but being that it falls in the category of mythology under the historic method, it doesn't fit the criteria for historicity.

So how do you explain it's historical accuracy then, since not one thing in it has ever been demonstrably proven wrong.
Especially since some of it's "history" was written many years in advance, of which fact there is archaeological evidence, most notably in the Cyrus Cylinder, and some is still coming true even today, and will continue to do so.

I'm not saying that the events didn't happen, I'm saying that under the specific guidelines outlined in the historic method, the event does not meet the criteria for historicity.

You think that the bible is supposed to be something it isn't.

It is supposed to be exactly what it was, is an will be. A record of the development of Jehovah's plan to get his creation back on track after Satan corrupted Adam and Eve.. From Genesis to Revelation it never departs from that record, and we are still on course for that day even now, getting ever closer to the beginning of the final stage of the plan.

Sorry, but any book that can get even what few details it provides for the origins of life correct, as Genesis 1 does when read with your power of reason turned up full, can only be the product of the creator himself.

I can imagine what you are going to say about that. It has been said so many times before, but I shall happily show you how you are misreading it if you get stuck.

To me, that is absolute proof, as it should be to any who read it with their minds in gear, on "4 wheel drive". You need that to negotiate the bits most people get completely wrong, lol.

I prefer to point people away from the deification of scripture, as I see it as a form of idolatry.

That said, it is silly to say that studying scripture is a waste of time, because " All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work."

I truly believe this.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
RoderickSpode
Posts: 2,371
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 9:35:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 8:06:27 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 7/14/2015 12:08:38 PM, RoderickSpode wrote:
Before I became a believer, I don't recall ever having anything against religion or Christianity. I could honestly say, I was free from religion. Not an obsessed bone in my body. If I wasn't a Christian now, I don't think I would bother with any religious internet discussions.

Engaging in religious debate is an indication that someone is obsessed with religion just as much as getting up to go running every morning is an indication that someone loves to run.
I don't think everyone who engages in religious debate is obsessed with religion.
UniversalTheologian
Posts: 1,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2015 9:49:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 7/16/2015 12:55:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
The flood myth seems to be fairly universal, even among cultures that shouldn't have been able to have contact with each other. I wouldn't say that there is NO evidence.

I repeat. No evidence of a GLOBAL flood. There is no evidence that all of the mountain ranges of the planet were ever covered completely with water and that every creature except those on a wooden boat died. Please do not equivocate. Local floods could indeed seem to cover the world but that never happened.

You can't prove a negative, that isn't how the scientific method works.

Again, equivocation. I'm basically saying that none of the so-called miracles in the Christian holy book happened.

Jesus healing the sick? Don't people get healed in hospitals?

Jesus feeding the multitudes? The hungry are being fed today.

Jesus raising the dead? Don't dead men speak through their writings and legacies?

The name "Jesus" means "God Saves". God "is what it is".

Jesus turning the water into wine AFTER they drank all the wine? Jesus saved the party.

No, I'm telling you what your holy book says is fact and it is not. If it's nothing but myth and allegory, well, there goes heaven, hell, the Resurrection, redemption, all that good stuff. It become relegated to the same level as every other 'holy' writ of every other religion.

If you understand the scriptures to other religions, you'd see that Jesus was not just prophesied by the Jewish people, but in the scripture of all the major religions. Even the ones that came after chronologically testify of Jesus.

More importantly, they are actually complimentary to the New Testament by emphasizing certain things.

The Buddha taught how to purify the heart, and "blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God".

The Tao Te Ching reveals a great deal about relative existence, the nature of creation, and getting in line with God's will. It sheds deeper meaning into the Uncreated God.

The Upanishads make clearer the mystery of Jesus' words, "At that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.". It sheds deeper meaning into the non-dualistic Oneness of God.

The Qur'an makes it clear that it is a mistake to believe that a man is god, and further emphasizes The Incomparable Oneness and sovereignty of God.

Certainly, Christ is sufficient, but God has sent prophets to all nations, and they all came bearing the same message. They all point to the same thing. They all reveal the straight and narrow path, and they all testify to the Lord of All Worlds.

God saves.

This is The Truth.
"There are trivial truths and the great truths. The opposite of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great truth is also true." ~ Niels Bohr

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer