Jump to content

Penguin

Regular Member
  • Posts

    541
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Penguin last won the day on March 23 2015

Penguin had the most liked content!

About Penguin

  • Birthday 04/07/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
  • Interests
    Writing, reading, movies, gaming, craftsmanship, research.
  • More About Me
    I spent 24 years as a Christian, and 18 of those years as a Southern Baptist. I live near Colorado Springs, a hell hole of Church activity. Since my conversion, I have done better for my health, my image, and my overall life.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    I'm Seeking.

Recent Profile Visitors

1,228 profile views

Penguin's Achievements

Proficient

Proficient (10/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges

243

Reputation

  1. "Speaking of surrender, while you're down there..."
  2. I haven't noticed a change in my specific illness as much as I've noticed a change in myself. Rather than praying to handle my symptoms, I have the personal responsibility and inclination to research the illnesses and the methods to control them. It's on me to own my illnesses, rather than let them own me. There's no passing the responsibility off to a higher power. I also don't concern myself with "being healed," since there's no god to heal me.
  3. http://www.faithit.com/3-common-traits-of-youth-who-dont-leave-the-church/ 1. They rely on emotional fervor to fuel their desire for devotion to their religion. 2. They have been heavily indoctrinated. 3. Their parents shoved it down their throats in addition to the clergy at church.
  4. God over porn? Ha, shit, that war was lost before it was ever conceived. Also "real men" don't need to psychologically enslave another human for "love". Now that I'm thinking about it, everything about that image pisses me off... Except @godoverporn, that's just silly. It kind of looks like he's trying to snap her neck.
  5. What the cat is really saying in that picture: BITCH, DROP THE TUNA ALREADY, FOR FUCK'S SAKE!
  6. I wouldn't be as gracious as to call that just simple-mindedness, although I suppose certain kind of stupidity must be a requirement. 'Arrogance' would be more fitting in my not-so-humble opinion. Unless, of course, he really is the recipient of the one true god's revelation, which I dare doubt, but cannot really deny. Didn't the Bible also say something about god intentionally misleading certain types of people? If so, I suppose even if the Bible god reveals stuff to him he shouldn't really necessarily be proud about it. What "last bit" don't you understand? The part about the story I recently read? What I'm saying is there are times where I wonder how quickly I might respond if my Dad needed me in some dire circumstance. I don't hate my Dad, necessarily. I just don't care about him. I'm incapable of pitying him. He doesn't deserve it. My Dad is arrogant, in many ways, but he is also simple-minded. He sees things as black or white, right or wrong, clear-cut with no room for ambiguity. He's also incapable of "higher thinking," like forming sentences that make sense and keeping track of genders (he constantly refers to his female horse as a "he" and his male horse as a "she"). There are times I wonder if I was adopted.
  7. Awhile back, I told my Dad I was having issues believing in Christianity. That was my "toe in the water" to see how he'd react. Yesterday, he asked me about what I meant. I told him I was open to the idea of God, open to him talking to me, but I wasn't hearing anything from him. I also told him I was continuing to search for proof of a god, and I asked my Dad what his proof of god was. He did a lot tapping over his chest in that conversation. He admitted that outside the Bible and outside of his faith, there is no evidence for god or Christianity. He chooses to believe in God because of his "faith." Furthermore, he does not believe he convinced himself of what he believes; it was God "revealing the truth." My Dad and I agree that the truth is absolute. There is either a god or there is not. Both statements cannot be true. On that note, I told him I was looking for truth, and I'm open to the possibility of Christianity being wrong. "You'll find your truth, and his name is Jesus," my Dad said. I told him he was approaching the idea of truth with bias. He said he wasn't being biased, that he was just convinced of the truth. I asked him for his evidence. Cue the heart-tapping. When I asked him about Jeremiah 17:9 (The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?), he ignored the question. My Dad said he could provide a "laundry list" of all the blessings God has given me in my life, but I said that doesn't explain how a loving God can condone rape and murder. If the soldiers of a country follow a policy of rape and murder, not following that policy later doesn't absolve them. My Dad asked me if I felt I was worthy to have the answers to my questions. I said that if God is real and wants a relationship with us, then his book--written to us to reveal himself to us--should be easily understood, without the need to have a clergyman interpret it for us. I also said that if I am truly saved ("once saved, always saved"), then I am seen as fully righteous by God because of Jesus Christ, so if I am as worthy as Christ, then yes, I am worthy to know the answers. "But doesn't it mean God is loving that he sent his son to die for our sins?" my Dad asked. "Why wouldn't he just get rid of sin in the first place?" I countered. "He will. In Heaven." "Why wouldn't he do that on Earth?" I asked. "Why shouldn't he just do it in Heaven?" My Dad is, unfortunately, dumber than a bag of hammers. He is very simple-minded, to the point that he believes what he is told if it feels good to him or comes from any kind of authority he accepts. He is a zealot, and has always treated me with mockery and disdain. At church, he presented the image of a happy, penitent family man. At home, every day from the time I was 5 until the time I was 18, he yelled at me and at times hit me for things like not putting up the DVDs after I got done using them. To this day I don't know why I didn't call the police; probably because he never left a mark on me, so no one would believe that "such a nice man" could be abusive. After I turned 18, I figured out he stopped hitting me because--at that point--it would've been assault. When I get to the point where I can move out into an apartment and I don't need him or his resources for anything, I will out myself as an atheist. I don't know what that will do to him, but at this point, I don't really care. Wrong or right, I have nothing but contempt for my Dad. I read a story recently about a woman married to a man who was abusive; she stayed with him out of fear and out of a sense that she should "honor her husband, no matter what." Then the guy has a heart attack while she's taking a shower. She quickly climbs out of the shower, but each step to the phone gives her pause as to whether or not she should really try to save him. I empathized.
  8. http://www.people.com/article/alex-malarkey-boy-who-came-back-from-heaven-hoax
  9. I've been thinking: what if, in response to Robertson, people videoed, photographed, etc. the non-religious doing good things? Then maybe share it on your social media with #nogoodreason . Just a thought. No good reason, as in, "I'm not doing this because I'm mandated by a deity or what have you. I'm doing this just to be a decent human being, because it's what I expect every moral human would do." Maybe it could be coupled with #nogodreason, as in, "I don't need a god to tell me what's right and wrong."
  10. Sorry I haven't been around. I've been kicking my book's ass.

    1. Ellinas

      Ellinas

      I have no idea what that means but no need to apologize.

  11. The fallacy in Robertson's claim is that atheists "need" to discover right and wrong. Christians--especially those of Fundamentalist persuasions--believe non-Christians have no morality. Atheists are singled out in this regard in that they do not believe there is a god, and so they must be the least moral of all, because morality comes from God. However, even if we put aside the entirety of the Bible, we can plainly see atheists have morality. Our various communities have laws. Most people break at least some of those. Speeding, for example. Does this make us immoral? Christians would say "yes," even if they themselves speed. They would then argue that while they do what is wrong, they are forgiven by God's grace. They would admit this is not license for their immorality, and many would then attempt to curtail their speeding--for as long as it takes to forget the conversation. The laws of almost every community on planet Earth also forbid stealing, murder, and child abuse. Is it the law that keeps us from doing these things? Perhaps, but I would wager we are inherently "wired" to be decent, if we are born in our right minds. The laws of the Egyptians in 3000 BC included concepts of justice. This tells us that before these laws were communicated, people saw a need--on their own--for balance, for a system declaring right and wrong. These beliefs predated Mosaic Law by 2,000 years, and were not exclusive to Egypt. None of these legal systems have perfectly preserved balance, hence the need for them as evolving concepts. How did we as a society decide that a red light means people should stop, and all but a minority get on board with that concept? Morality grows out of the need for self-preservation. In the end, we all look out for number one, but we also have empathy for one another. It's the reason we might buy a homeless guy a sandwich or help someone who has fallen down. We inherently recognize what Christians call the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Morality is nothing more than recognition of cause and effect. I want others to help me, so I'm going to help them. There is nothing in this world that is not under the umbrella idea that "if you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours." Even Christians can't except themselves from it. "Love me and I'll accept you into heaven," God says. "Treat other people well, and you will be treated well," the Bible says. The same is true in any religion and culture, no matter what. We recognize child abuse for what it is because we know how we would feel if we were hurt that way, and we recognize the frailty of younger, less capable beings. That is why crimes against children are so abhorrent, even to men and women who are in prison for the most brutal of crimes. Men who rape adult women loathe child molesters, proving even criminals have morality. Everyone--except perhaps the truly psychopathic, sociopathic, and psychotic--recognize evil and good. Ariel Castro, the man who kept three women trapped in his home for years and abused them in the worst of ways on a regular basis, recognized his evil. A person who cannot discern right from wrong does not try to hide their crimes. Castro reportedly hanged himself in his cell. If that is true and he did not have any unsolicited help in that endeavor, then it would be proof he recognized the evil of his crimes. "What about Gandhi and Mother Teresa and others who selflessly gave up their lives in the service of others?" I would still argue they did what they did for what it would do for them. It feels good to help others, many times, or to support a cause. It's masturbation for the ego. "I'm a good person for doing this" is sometimes the gratification we get from helping others. It's the reason people eat organic or don't drive a car; they feel better about themselves for it, regardless of the benefits for anyone else. Phil Robertson is also susceptible to this idea. He's a self-centered individual who spends his time lazing around, unless he's cracking sex jokes with his wife or "learning his grandchildren some responsibility." He's got the same mentality as every other Fundamentalist patriarch: I'm the leader, blessed by God, so I can do what I want and condemn others. It takes a person who is willfully blind or of diminished intelligence to believe one people group has a monopoly on morality. Laws are created based on morality, and laws are a part of every culture that survives for any length of time. Cultures may claim these ideas were inspired by their deities, but the god-fearing and the godless arrive at the same conclusions in regard to what is right and wrong. Of course, a Christian would then argue that we only arrive at the same conclusions because of God, but they can't have their cake and eat it, too. Either God has nothing to do with us and therefore does not inspire us, or God is with us whether we believe in him or not, and therefore we have morality. Their logic falls apart, leading to one probable conclusion: morality is mankind's creation, based on cause and effect.
  12. When I was in college, I had an English professor who had us write several objective papers on various topics. One kid kept saying things like, "When God created Adam and Eve, He did not intend for there to be genetic manipulation." He flunked the class because the professor warned him repeatedly that he can offer an opinion, but should not state it as fact. He even gave the kid a script to follow, but the kid said he wouldn't "deny his faith."
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.