Do you believe in God?
Tell me people do you believe in God?
Good luck on your quest to end Christianity. You can join forces with FellaGaga.. one internet forum at a time.
I’m going to be over here focusing on improving and fulfilling the promise of Christianity.
We have nothing more to say to each other as I’m not, nor never will be, converting into your futile project.
Voltaire claimed that Christianity would fade away within 100 years of his lifetime. Supposedly, after his death, the new owners made his former home a Bible publishing house.
I'm not a mythicist. I accept that a self proclaimed Rabbi named Yeshua (who couldn't read Hebrew) existed in first century Judea and preached about the end of the world being imminent and who committed heresy leading to his execution, whether by stoning as the Sanhedrin claim or crucification as the Bible claims.
Based on your two bolded statements above, it's unclear to me why you're not a mythicist.
As an aside, I believe there was no evidence for the existence of Pontious Pilate until the 20th century when coins bearing his name were discovered.
It was also relatively recent when evidence for the existence was Hittites was discovered.
Archeology is (one of) the Bible-believers best friends!
Why would I get worked up over a religion based on a vile immoral book that adherents in my country want to make part of school curriculum And want to limit rights and freedoms to force everyone to follow their religions sick and twisted morality
Well, according to your own words*:
And morality is the list of rules we agree on as a society.
If my team can convince 'society' to agree to my teams's moral rules, then it is downright moral for us to "limit rights and freedoms to force everyone to follow our sick and twisted morality."
By your own definition of morality, my religious book stops being vile and immoral when "we agree on it as a society."
If I have misunderstood your position, please clarify. Thanks!
*#2103 in this thread
The issue is your willingness to receive it. You should be familiar with the parable of the sower.
Seeds aren’t planted in the sky, so unless you get out of your head, where you’ve mistakenly located wisdom, you will remain stagnant.
Give yourself a reality check and ask when was the last time you’ve had a paradigm shifting, spiritual transformation?
Your journey isn’t over. The part of you which is sure you’ve reached the pinnacle, this part is not worthy of leading.
The issue is your willingness to receive it. You should be familiar with the parable of the sower.Seeds aren’t planted in the sky, so unless you get out of your head, where you’ve mistakenly located wisdom, you will remain stagnant.Give yourself a reality check and ask when was the last time you’ve had a paradigm shifting, spiritual transformation?Your journey isn’t over. The p
I'm willing to receive wisdom and wise counsel. And a big part of that is exercising discernment when choosing counselors.
If anything you write on your blog results in a "paradigm shifting, spiritual transformation" for me, I will surely let you know.
The issue is your willingness to receive it. You should be familiar with the parable of the sower.Seeds aren’t planted in the sky, so unless you get out of your head, where you’ve mistakenly located wisdom, you will remain stagnant.Give yourself a reality check and ask when was the last time you’ve had a paradigm shifting, spiritual transformation?Your journey isn’t over. The p
For the Christian who thinks they have made it to the end of the journey, I would ask them to describe what it means to enter into heaven.
Here is what I know - the self and the soul are co lead characters in the story, and the self is solely tied to this world.
So if entry into heaven doesn’t happen IN THIS WORLD, then you have denied the self and are not in the full Christian story.
Before Jesus ascended, his soul AND SELF had already been unified in the kingdom of this world. Christians take note!
For the Christian who thinks they have made it to the end of the journey, I would ask them to describe what it means to enter into heaven.Here is what I know - the self and the soul are co lead characters in the story, and the self is solely tied to this world.So if entry into heaven doesn’t happen IN THIS WORLD, then you have denied the self and are not in the full Christian s
Jesus said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the Earth but men do not see it.”
If you die before entering the kingdom of this world, then it’s true you will ascend to heaven. However, it’s the abandoned heaven of old, which isn’t better than the current state of this world — as above so below.
Once again, are you currently in the true paradise of heaven in this world? No? Then, you’re not done.
Jesus said, "The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the Earth but men do not see it.”If you die before entering the kingdom of this world, then it’s true you will ascend to heaven. However, it’s the abandoned heaven of old, which isn’t better than the current state of this world — as above so below.Once again, are you currently in the true paradise of heaven in this world? No? Th
Still, Christ ascended back to the beginning to be with those souls who have to start over from the beginning and try again.
Do not fear. None will be left behind in the end. This is how the story goes.
Yeah it's a story all right. Anyway, there is a something revealing in the god debates. When someone identifies as a theist, they just presume you know which god they are talking about, and that the presumption should be the god they believe in. In other words, they were presupposing the god they believe in if there is a god, and why wouldn't everybody else do the same?
So when you ask them "Which god?" ... it stops them in their tracks. And they are suddenly embarrassed to realize they are indeed presupposing that without realizing it. And have been doing it their whole lives. Epistemology is absent in that dynamic, and true belief sits in its place.
It’s just too unlikely to believe he was made up out of whole cloth but it’s possible that he’s an almagation of multiple apocalyptic rabbis of the era.
As an aside, I believe there was no evidence for the existence of Pontious Pilate until the 20th century when coins bearing his name were discovered.
There were writings about him in the centuries after his death. And the Caesarea inscription was found over 60 years ago, and his coins have been very common.
It was also relatively recent when evidence for the existence was Hittites was discovered.
Archeology is (one of) the Bible-believers best friends!
The Hittites in the Bible are the Hethites, not related to the Hittites empire, but are descendants of Heth. Just another misleading apologetic talking point.
You never have anything to say to defend your irrational beliefs, you dodge every question.
All of the religions are wild guesses about the metaphysics of the universe. At that they are superstitious, legendary, mythological, mostly from ignorant times, magical, from wildly conflicting and concocted tales.
Nothing could be more obvious. Everyone sees this instantly except for regarding their own religion. That one is granted the presupposition free pass.
All of the religions are wild guesses about the metaphysics of the universe. At that they are superstitious, legendary, mythological, mostly from ignorant times, magical, from wildly conflicting and concocted tales.
Nothing could be more obvious. Everyone sees this instantly except for regarding their own religion. That one is granted the presupposition free pass.
If you look at the overall theme of the old testament, it's pretty clear. The pattern is God gets mad at the Israelites or some tribe or some king for not following his laws/commands, and then commits genocide, inflicts a pestilence or famine or has them lose in war or become captive in Egypt or Babylon, until they've paid for their sins, and then he has them released from his punishment.
This was written in the Bronze age when the high priests had to explain why things got shitty, they would trot out the "you are all sinners so god is punishing us" trope to manipulate the mob, forestall themselves being blamed, and to keep the tithes and offerings coming in.
David's infant son died of an illness and David got usurped and his wives publicly raped by Absolom, after David seduced Bathsheba and killed her husband. And eventually three more of his sons died early deaths.
These are awful things that happened, so the writers of the bible decided to explain it as God's wrath. And so they wrote that God himself says he caused David's sons (to give him a "four fold" punishment) to suffer and die and his wives to be brutally raped in order to punish David for his sin.
But it's a story that entirely contradicts the Christian myth of a just and merciful god. It is clearly unjust to punish the innocent for another's sin. The old testament is never really concerned about demonstrating its imaginary god is just or merciful, instead the writers ascribe it human emotions like jealousy and anger to explain their failures and catastrophes.
When you renounce reality, when you renounce the epistemology that values reality, it kind of marks you as a type. Depending on the severity of the problem – depending on the level of zealotry – you become some version of a science denying, fact obtuse, reason allergic, true believer. This mentality underlies all the religions; it supports and feeds them. So that it is little wonder that the pre-scientific world was necessarily rife with true believing, superstitious, mythical, fantastic, imaginary, chimeric interpretations of reality.
It’s not that reason and rationality are the ultimate in human experience, or hold the ultimate answers, it’s that when you have to insist on suspending them to buy into something that the problem arises. This epistemology, this mindset, morphs into a stubborn disdain for reality, into a stubborn dogmatism that overrules reality. Voila: you have fundamentalism of myriad stripes. Belonging is a far more primal and powerful need than a reasonable epistemology, so we have billions belonging to all the religions and cults.
All of the religions are wild guesses about the metaphysics of the universe. At that they are superstitious, legendary, mythological, mostly from ignorant times, magical, from wildly conflicting and concocted tales.
Nothing could be more obvious. Everyone sees this instantly except for regarding their own religion. That one is granted the presupposition free pass.
Can you rephrase this objection without egregiously begging the question against theism? I doubt it. If you wrote out your Ps and Qs here it would read as complete nonsense.
Can you rephrase this objection without egregiously begging the question against theism? I doubt it. If you wrote out your Ps and Qs here it would read as complete nonsense.
That's been asked of him before, and as far as I know he has never complied.
He seems to typically respond with some general screed about vampire religion blood cult, etc. etc..
Can you rephrase this objection without egregiously begging the question against theism? I doubt it. If you wrote out your Ps and Qs here it would read as complete nonsense.
Can you demonstrate that the explanation for theism isn’t superstitious beliefs attempting to explain reality without justifiable evidence?
It’s not circular (begging the question) to posit superstition as the reason for most theism, given there is no other reasonable evidence fir theistic beliefs.
Can you demonstrate that the explanation for theism isn’t superstitious beliefs attempting to explain reality without justifiable evidence?
It’s not circular (begging the question) to posit superstition as the reason for most theism, given there is no other reasonable evidence fir theistic beliefs.
We are discussing whether or not the belief in God is rational. You are saying that belief in is caused by superstition which(unless you're using superstition in a non standard way) implies irrationality, but the very thing up for discussion is whether belief in God is rational. That is begging the question against theism.
Can you demonstrate that the explanation for theism isn’t superstitious beliefs attempting to explain reality without justifiable evidence? It’s not circular (begging the question) to posit superstition as the reason for most theism, given there is no other reasonable evidence fir theistic beliefs.
We are discussing whether or not the belief in God is rational. You a
Nope, I said it’s a reasonable explanation, not that I was asserting it’s truth.
but the very thing up for discussion is whether belief in God is rational. That is begging the question against theism.
Again, it’s not circular in anyway, that’s just another assertion you lack any evidence for.
And it’s your burden to demonstrate
reasonable evidence that your beliefs are rational. Until you do, we have the right to speculate on what is the best explanation of how the irrational beliefs in gods were first formed.
