Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The Bible Boogyman


OnceConvinced

Recommended Posts

 

 

I think one of the reasons xtians conclude that we have turned away from xtianity due to being angry with god is because they don't understand we are only discussing our viewpoints about characters in stories when we raise these issues. They interpret our viewpoints to mean that deep down we actually think god is exists but is malevolent, so we don't like him. We simply don't believe the god of the bible exists at all

 

The reason I don't believe is the same reason Christians don't believe in leprechauns or Zeus. I'm just being honest with myself instead of letting the crowd dictate what I should believe when it clearly makes no sense. Replace Jesus with Peter Pan, and all the Christians would believe in Peter Pan.

 

The more honest way to be is to see the bible stories as symbolic and not literal, which would probably help Christians become better people because they'd be focusing on the meaning instead of trying to force yourself to believe something and lying to yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is way too much extreme suffering that has occurred in the past and present to be justified by pie-in-the-sky. The incredible amount of suffering visited upon innocents is pointless. Saying that starving to death (for example) must have meaning is an insane way to perceive it. Attaching meaning to pointless suffering is immoral,IMHO.

 

And IMHO, you've stated no objective proof for these statements - they are simply opinion. You may say that they are informed, educated, rational opinions - but they remain opinions with no basis in truth.

 

Blaming "sin" or accepting some distant heaven to makeup for it, excuses the biblegod from immediately relieving it. So, in your world, it's extreme and random punishment from the biblegod or Satan or sin or even being born human. Explain it your way, and the reasons for suffering are cruel and unusual punishment. There is a definite lack of empathy and your reasons ring hollow.

 

Rebellious sin is a viable explanation - certainly moreso than sheer accident of evolution. Because we all understand crime & punishment, and we all understand that we participate collectively in the blessings & consequences of decisions made by our leaders, we all understand the call and responsibility to alleviate suffering as we have opportunity, etc.

 

Lynx said it best when she commented on animals suffering. They have nothing to learn from it. Come to think of it, neither do children.

 

Really? - children don't learn from experience? - animals don't learn from experience?

 

No. They. Don't. Especially not if the "experience" kills them, like the 20,000-25,000 children who die every day from malnutrition. You're lack of compassion is shameful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I grant the things you've listed are improvements, but I think as we look at the vast sweep of human history, this list comprises things which are only Pyrrhic victories. We're thankful for these advances, but cannot promote them as evidence that humanity is evolving and improving as a race. Way too much death and destruction occurring as we speak - even the the face of some significant victories. I'll respond with more later.

 

Part of the reason there is death and destruction is due to the Religious Reich (which I don't think you are part of) insist on war. I'm talking about dominionists and rapturist who think that if there is war in the Middle East their Jesus will fall out of the sky and snatch them up and take them to Never Never Land. This does not lead to peace, but to war, which they want, but this kind of theology only makes their deity a nuke. The other thing is, we will never be able to overcome death. That is a fact of life. Lastly, in order to we, just like every other animal, we have to kill something, even if we are vegetarians. So death is never going to go away. Now that I think about it, destruction isn't going to go completely away. Nature is a violent and there will always be that hurricane, tornado, or earthquake, even under the best of ecological conditions. So we cannot conquer nature, even when we improve our environment, but that doesn't mean earth is a horrible place We, as humans, can make it better than it is though, by not killing each other over religion and other crap.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But to say that Mankind is improving? I continue to press you that you are simply not facing the facts of history.

Not facing the facts of history? You're joking. I'll list the actual facts of history that existed nowhere in society as widely-accepted values prior to the Enlightenment:

 


     
  • Equality
  • Freedom
  • Representational and deliberative democracy
  • The equality of citizens before the law, regardless of race, sex, or creed
  • Political and civil rights
  • Freedom of speech
  • Freedom of assembly
  • Fair trial
  • The end of slavery
  • and...Freedom of Religion guaranteed by constitution

 

Now Ray, I want you to accept this also, that no premodern religion delivered any of these values and rights on a large scale, and in fact often did the exact opposite! That Ray, is the fact of history. That is what actually has occurred historically. That is overwhelmingly evident. Do you deny this?

 

If your religion is what brought these to life and light in the world, then please offer proof. So as it stands, my point is correct. We improved, and we improved without it coming through church dogma. We are not sinners unraveling at the seams. We are growing more moral! Accept the facts Ray.

 

I grant the things you've listed are improvements, but I think as we look at the vast sweep of human history, this list comprises things which are only Pyrrhic victories. We're thankful for these advances, but cannot promote them as evidence that humanity is evolving and improving as a race. Way too much death and destruction occurring as we speak - even the the face of some significant victories. I'll respond with more later.

Well, that you see them as Pyrrhic Victories is curious, to say the least, tragic is perhaps a better word. Unrealistic and in a state of denial, is perhaps the best description. But my point is still made. If they are improvements, and we made them, then they came from something positive and good inside of us!

 

If we were on a steady decline from God to hell, from Life to our godless demise as your theology frames it, then where in the world did all these improvements come from if we are but poor sinners but for the grace of God? Faulted, imperfect, yes. But they exist! They are in fact improvements. They did not exist before, they do now. None of that is possible in your mythic story arc. Face it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we were on a steady decline from God to hell, from Life to our godless demise as your theology frames it, then where in the world did all these improvements come from if we are but poor sinners but for the grace of God? Faulted, imperfect, yes. But they exist! They are in fact improvements. They did not exist before, they do now. None of that is possible in your mythic story arc. Face it.

To god all our righteousness is like filthy rags. Being good won't get you into heaven. We're filthy, evil sinners.

 

Brainwashing doesn't disappear so easily. Christians are told these things over and over. That's why you never see fundies trying to further the advancement of mankind. They'd rather stifle it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brainwashing doesn't disappear so easily. Christians are told these things over and over. That's why you never see fundies trying to further the advancement of mankind. They'd rather stifle it.

Yes, modes of thought aren't easy to change as is quite evident by the degree of incostencies they are willing to ignore or rationalize to justify the belief. Example is what I just saw saying essentially, "Yes, they're improvements, but at what cost?" What the hell is that? It's like my ex-wife who lived in denial of her own responsibilities when I would point out something I felt was wrong in what she did. Her response was, "Yeah, but what about you?" What the hell? It's the same thing here.

 

It is an improvement, and even though it can be clearly argued it's not a high price at all, on the contrary actually, the fact remains it's an improvement. Minimizing, deflection, distraction, denial. It's all part of the inability of a worn out belief to improve itself. His belief is incapable of self-improvement. What you see in this irrationality is its death throes. It is clear is must be discarded for new robes. As Jesus himself said, "You cannot but new wine in old skins". Good thoughts from Jesus that applies to Ray's worn-out, brittle old wine skins of a premodern belief.

 

And so the reason they want to 'stifle' advancement is because they simply are incapable of integrating modern improvements into it. These improvements in morality, for instance. Ray would have a woman fulfilling "God's" role for her as prescribed by 1st Century societies, because he believes against all reason and evidence that women are somehow less able than males on the mental and social scale of things. Add to this everything about equal rights I mentioned as improvements, denials of anything that doesn't look and taste just as his prejudices prescribe. He is unable to integrate modern improvements into the old skins of this antiquated theology, he tries to deny these are improvements! Science is wrong too! "Yeah, but what about you!?", deflections, and so forth.

 

Again, these are the spasms of a dying belief in its death throes. "Yeah, but so and so says he has proof the Ark is real!", and so on. It's a refusal to come to terms with the world, instead hiding behind a tradition. I don't see salvation in this at all. I see fear and a face hiding from the light of the sun. I see this as a spiritual problem on the deepest levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, these are the spasms of a dying belief in its death throes. "Yeah, but so and so says he has proof the Ark is real!", and so on. It's a refusal to come to terms with the world, instead hiding behind a tradition. I don't see salvation in this at all. I see fear and a face hiding from the light of the sun. I see this as a spiritual problem on the deepest levels.

I think it's a dying belief for each person who believes it. Something's going on in their psyche where it feels like death to NOT believe it. It's like they're fighting to hold on to something. Kind of like how an alcoholic fights to hold on to their denial, and it feels like death to let it go. The brainwashing seems to actually disrupt the balance of the brain. Now, I'm talking fundamentalism here, I don't think all of Christianity is like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not facing the facts of history? You're joking. I'll list the actual facts of history that existed nowhere in society as widely-accepted values prior to the Enlightenment:

 


  •  
  • Equality
  • Freedom
  • Representational and deliberative democracy
  • The equality of citizens before the law, regardless of race, sex, or creed
  • Political and civil rights
  • Freedom of speech
  • Freedom of assembly
  • Fair trial
  • The end of slavery
  • and...Freedom of Religion guaranteed by constitution

 

Now Ray, I want you to accept this also, that no premodern religion delivered any of these values and rights on a large scale, and in fact often did the exact opposite! That Ray, is the fact of history. That is what actually has occurred historically. That is overwhelmingly evident. Do you deny this? If your religion is what brought these to life and light in the world, then please offer proof. So as it stands, my point is correct. We improved, and we improved without it coming through church dogma. We are not sinners unraveling at the seams. We are growing more moral! Accept the facts Ray.

 

Where have these things gained ground and flourished? Under Islam? Buddhism? Animism? Communism? Fascism? Atheism? Polytheism?

 

Fact is Christianity reduced exposure (killing unwanted infants that were left out to die), outlawed slavery in the West (slavery is still present in northern Africa, Middle East, Indochina - heck, actually, wherever human trafficking is practiced), and outlawed Sati in India (burning wives on funeral pyre of dead husband). Also, Christianity has generally promoted human rights, women's rights, democracy, reduced child labor, brought clean water, increased agricultural yields, established schools & orphanages & hospitals, brought medical missions to remote places on Earth, etc. Do you deny this?

 

End of slavery? Are you serious? Do you not read about modern human trafficking, or recent accounts where WESTERN JOURNALISTS HAVE TRAVELED TO SUDAN AND PURCHASED YOUNG BLACK AFRICAN SLAVES?

 

The freedoms you list are predominantly in Western societies, where there has been a strong Christian foundation laid down for centuries which has impacted the thinking of those cultures.

 

Tell me about Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung, Qadaffi, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Noriega, WWI, WWII, Iran vs Iraq, the Rape of Nanking, and the plethora of other wars fought in the last 100 years of human history. How many millions have dies in these wars? Or how many have died in other ways driven by the greed and corruption of Mankind? How many millions? This is improvement?

 

And you actually believe that because of some incremental improvements in some societies on this globe, that therefore Man is improving? Are you willfully blind to the rampant corruption & death present today?

 

As I said; we should all work to improve the conditions - spiritual, economic, political, legal, environmental, etc for the peoples of the Earth. We're all created in God's image & likeness with inherent value, we are to care for one another. But to think we'll usher in some Utopia, some Omega Point - well, that's just laughable.

 

WE ARE NOT PERFECT. Quit trying to say because we still have illnesses, immaturity, ignorance, and prejudices, that we are not improving! Do you say that to your child??? "You'll never be any better. Just look at you, you piece of filth! May God have mercy on you Billy!"

 

Wha??? We're nor perfect? Hey, as a race - we're wicked, vile, corrupt, selfish, etc. Do you think I'm pointing to immaturity? Illness? Ignorance? Prejudice? NO - I'm pointing to ample and ever growing examples of "man's gross inhumanity to man" that is currently practiced on a global scale!

 

And if any child was insolent, disrespectful, angry without cause, selfish, cruel, vindictive, arrogant >> Yes, I would confront them and tell them to cry out to God for His mercy to change their heart.

 

Your worldview can best be described as Pollyannish.

 

Methinks you should really look hard at exactly what evolution really is, Ray.

 

We've had this discussion before, where even others on this site have corrected your wrong views on evolution. But I will write more on this topic later.

 

Yep, and we are learning from history's lessons on our path to betterment. My point, we don't accept this. We're growing beyond it. This fact flies straights into the face of your argument and destroys it.

 

Really? We're learning? Today? Have you been to Chechnya? Ossetia? Somalia? Yemen? How 'bout that Arab Spring? The drug wars in Mexico? China's repression of Tibet? Eastern Europe & Indonesia where girls are routinely kidnapped and trafficked? PLZ - what the hell are we learning?

 

A few Pyrrhic victories, and you get all giddy. You can't see the forest for the trees.

 

Yes, we aren't perfect, and autrocites like this stand forever etched into our collective minds as IMMORAL. We never want that to happen again. That is an improvement to what was once seen as just how things were. We no longer are willing to accept that. We have improved beyond that in what we are willing to turn a blind eye to anymore - like slavery, which the church did nothing about in 2000 years.

 

If we don't want it and won't accept it and condemn it as immoral - then why does it continue to happen on a global scale???? And your ignorance of historical orthodox Christianity is amazing.

 

No, I say we need to embrace the highest possible Truth within us and let it flow out in compassion to the world, transforming it into that very "image of God" you talk about with no understanding at all, it seems. You astound me sometimes. I hope there's something in you that can hear.

 

Hear what - your Pollyannish pronouncements? The TRUTH within us? Is that a joke?? Because that is precisely what has landed Mankind where he is today - following that truth within us! It is only a direct intervention and invasion by the Lord Jesus Christ which will rid this world of its corruption, condemn all evil, right all wrongs, administer all justice, and bring about a New Heavens and New Earth where righteousness dwells.

 

Matthew 15:13–20 (ESV)

13 He answered, “Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up. 14 Let them alone; they are blind guides. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit.” 15 But Peter said to him, “Explain the parable to us.” 16 And he said, “Are you also still without understanding? 17 Do you not see that whatever goes into the mouth passes into the stomach and is expelled? 18 But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this defiles a person. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. 20 These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.”

 

Revelation 21:1–8 (ESV)

 

The New Heaven and the New Earth

21 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 4 He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away.” 5 And he who was seated on the throne said, “Behold, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.” 6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray would have a woman fulfilling "God's" role for her as prescribed by 1st Century societies, because he believes against all reason and evidence that women are somehow less able than males on the mental and social scale of things. Add to this everything about equal rights I mentioned as improvements, denials of anything that doesn't look and taste just as his prejudices prescribe. He is unable to integrate modern improvements into the old skins of this antiquated theology, he tries to deny these are improvements! Science is wrong too! "Yeah, but what about you!?", deflections, and so forth.

 

Really? When have I said that women are less able mentally and on a social scale (and what do you even mean by 'social scale' of things?)

 

When have I denied equal rights was an improvement? Or have I just judged the degree of improvement different than you?

 

What prejudices do I have?

 

When have I ever said science is wrong? And just we're so the same wavelength, can you provide and clear demarcation for science vs non-science, plz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not facing the facts of history? You're joking. I'll list the actual facts of history that existed nowhere in society as widely-accepted values prior to the Enlightenment:

 


     
  • Equality
  • Freedom
  • Representational and deliberative democracy
  • The equality of citizens before the law, regardless of race, sex, or creed
  • Political and civil rights
  • Freedom of speech
  • Freedom of assembly
  • Fair trial
  • The end of slavery
  • and...Freedom of Religion guaranteed by constitution

 

Now Ray, I want you to accept this also, that no premodern religion delivered any of these values and rights on a large scale, and in fact often did the exact opposite! That Ray, is the fact of history. That is what actually has occurred historically. That is overwhelmingly evident. Do you deny this? If your religion is what brought these to life and light in the world, then please offer proof. So as it stands, my point is correct. We improved, and we improved without it coming through church dogma. We are not sinners unraveling at the seams. We are growing more moral! Accept the facts Ray.

 

Where have these things gained ground and flourished? Under Islam? Buddhism? Animism? Communism? Fascism? Atheism? Polytheism?

These things are emerging everywhere, and have taken greater root in some places more than others. I was quite clear to say that we have not whole-scale arrived, but the fact that this higher moral consciousness has arrived and is working to overcome all these remaining atrocities of our past we are seeking to eradicate shows that we are improving. That condition of an emerging global consciousness of the above list of improvements did not exist prior to the Enlightenment on any large scale as it does today. That you can point to Stalin and Hitler and company show we still have a ways to go, but the point is we are saying NO! to it. That's new.

 

Fact is Christianity reduced exposure (killing unwanted infants that were left out to die), outlawed slavery in the West

What??? :lmao: Christianity outlawed slavery? That's nutty. Western Democracy did. The Christian church was not the driving force behind this.

 

Also, Christianity has generally promoted human rights, women's rights, democracy, reduced child labor, brought clean water, increased agricultural yields, established schools & orphanages & hospitals, brought medical missions to remote places on Earth, etc. Do you deny this?

I applaud the Christian church when it is in fact able to respond successfully to an emerging higher moral conscious and support it. So, thank you. But get a grip on your ego and history. It wasn't the church that drove this politically.

 

It also wasn't the church that drove women's rights. It wasn't the church that drove freedom of speech. It wasn't the church that drove any of that above list. You called me "Pollyanish?" I think that hat fits your head a little better.

 

End of slavery? Are you serious?

Yes, I am serious. I explained all this before. I'm fully aware that it happens in black-market corners of the world and that sucks big time. Again, you think I am saying we have eradicated these practices from all existence. I did not say that nor and that naive to believe that.

 

But, my point is and has been that whereas this was practiced and sanctioned as normal and acceptable in your idealized past, the Biblical days for example, both Old and New Testament times, it is not anymore. It is no longer sanctioned, and when we find it we fight to eliminate it. That was not so before. It is no longer acceptable practice. That Ray, is a fact. And that Ray is an improvement.

 

Take all of what I said about this, and apply it to everyone of that list of improvements.

 

Back in the day, Hitler and Stalin where also accepted as the way of the world. Not anymore. Ever read the myth of Joshua in the Bible? It would be fun to do a word replacement in it substituting Hitler for Joshua, German for Israelite, and Jews for Canaanites, just to see how it would read.

 

If you found that appalling, but not the story as it stands, then I'd say there is something wrong with you morally, and the fact that you are trying to deny improvements in the world with this "Yeah, but what about Hitler?," nonsense because you are in fact either unaware of it in yourself, or you are trying to not acknowledge it because you don't know how to integrate your Romanticism with the past with the higher morals of today. The latter is where I honestly believe you to be at. Denial. "Yeah, but what about X?" Deflection and distraction. "Yeah, but what about Hitler"?

 

The freedoms you list are predominantly in Western societies, where there has been a strong Christian foundation laid down for centuries which has impacted the thinking of those cultures.

So you want to steal credit? All of these things came about with the independence of these pursuits from the Church. They did not originate within the church. The church stabilized and supported what was normal for culture at the time. It didn't create the Modern West. No way. These were Enlightenment values, not Catholic, nor Protestant innovations.

 

What was the cry of Voltaire? "Remember the atrocities!" It was a cry for improvement.

 

Tell me about Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Mao Tse-tung, Qadaffi, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Noriega, WWI, WWII, Iran vs Iraq, the Rape of Nanking, and the plethora of other wars fought in the last 100 years of human history. How many millions have dies in these wars? Or how many have died in other ways driven by the greed and corruption of Mankind? How many millions? This is improvement?

No. Its a holdover from our past we are trying to eradicate now. Unlike in the past. I said that, and will repeat it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you actually believe that because of some incremental improvements in some societies on this globe, that therefore Man is improving? Are you willfully blind to the rampant corruption & death present today?

No, I full recognize our primitive natures are still part of our past, and unlike you apparently, I also recognize a very dominant, rising moral consciousness that is globally calling for an end to it! Are you blind?

 

But to think we'll usher in some Utopia, some Omega Point - well, that's just laughable.

I never said Utopia. That's your myth. Improvement, higher consciousness with which to better resolve our issues and through which the highest ideals of our human nature are embraced and extended to all.

 

Also the fact of how you just used Omega Point as synonymous with Utopia shows you don't know what Pierre de Chardin meant by it. The Omega Point is that which all is drawn to in a thirst for perfection. Higher stages of development (evolution) emerge on the way towards that. You can call that God if you wish. But not in the sense you do as a man with a book up there looking down on us dirty worms.

 

NO - I'm pointing to ample and ever growing examples of "man's gross inhumanity to man" that is currently practiced on a global scale!

I've never claimed it is practiced on a global scale. That has never been my argument, nor is it a necessary argument to prove my point. We are globally awakening to it, and are globally attempting to enact that change globally, and is practiced on a larger scale than anytime in the past. That alone, is an improvement over your idealized past where these values on a large scale, again a large scale as today had never occurred until now. Before it was one or two voices, today it's growing everywhere.

 

Is there greater and more wicked death? No. It's just more of the same crap, just with bigger stones and greater casualties. But that before hasn't gotten worse. Only how many get killed has. The behavior is no worse than ever though. It's always been bad. But we are rising up and saying NO now. And that, is the improvement.

 

Your worldview can best be described as Pollyannish.

Is it? I would say it is very realistic. I recognize the flaws and the improvements. All you see is the flaws. You my friend are nothing shy of an old school Western Romantic, dressed up in the clothes of a Christian, using its myths to support a "Paradise Lost" mythic reality that never existed, at any time in the past.

 

 

BTW, my views of evolution have been shown to be wrong by members of this site? Huh?

 

Ray, if you really want to try to understand my thoughts, this video below is like a look straight into my brain. It's a little complex and goes fast, but seriously consider this. It is hardly a reductionist point of view, so bear with it at first.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it? I would say it is very realistic. I recognize the flaws and the improvements. All you see is the flaws. You my friend are nothing shy of an old school Western Romantic, dressed up in the clothes of a Christian, using its myths to support a "Paradise Lost" mythic reality that never existed, at any time in the past.

I think it's very realistic too Antlerman. It's better to take some responsibility and try to make things better in the world, even if it's just in the people around you. Much better than just throwing up your hands and quitting, lazily saying 'we're all doomed' and waiting for a mythical figure to magically make things right. That's like someone who commits suicide, they're so selfish that they show no respect for life and don't care about the innocent people they hurt. Christianity is so negative and lazy. If they really were moral they'd try to make the world a better place instead of hating it. That's not love, it's apathy.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can always count on you for a solid repromand......and I hear your argument, but I am really not convinced P. What are the actual member numbers on facebook, men vs women?

 

In January, 2010, it is close to equal, with women slightly in the lead overall at 56%. Hardly a landslide. Your thinking, and the thinking of your clan is mistakenly applied to the world.

 

US-12.09-age-gender-no30.png

 

Women are more social, more gossipy. Men are more analytical.

 

The trend does not define the individual. I am an analytic person with a vagina. Most of my vagina-bearing friends are also extremely analytical. If any one of us were to out-analyze you, would than mean you are not a man?...that you were deficient as a human with male genetalia?

 

The emphasis on what a man is and what a woman is--or worse, "should be", is functionally bankrupt. Even conservative Christianity, which is hellbent on instilling mass conformity, cannot resist this natural diversity, hence the variety of your cults. Psychologists and doctors rely on studies as guides for a starting points for treatment, realizing the needs of individuals are not defined, and should not be defined, by a trend. But as trends go, is 56% of facebook being female an overwhelming majority? I don't even see it. But, again, I am not a part of a rigid social group where everyone's role is strictly define and their natural diversity suppressed, so, here, our men may share their lives and ideas and such over facebook. And, indeed, they do.

 

Perhaps this is the same thing AM and I are discussing.....the need for both to form a complete entity.

 

Functionally meaningless. Detached from reality. Two people do not make a whole or complete being. If they are harmonious, they might make a better machine. However, there will still be troubles and triumphs. Real people; they are more complicated than this simple sense of balance and completeness defined by some idealized gender norms.

 

Face it, one analytical + one socially oriented covers more turf than two analyticals or two socials.....unlike poker. If you decide "covers more turf" is not adaquate, then certainly it presents a unique entity vs the others......no way around it.

 

Analysis is not the antithesis of socialization. Wait a sec...are you talking about you and your ideal partner? This makes more sense if this is just what /you/ need. You also might tell all of those couples with social males in them that the guy needs to tone it down, as he is screwing up the ideal gender balance.

 

One who is skilled at cooking works best with one who has a propensity to tidying up. Which one is the male and which is the female in this scenario?

 

You take my business....there are a lot of women in managerial positions, but there is more backstabbing and crap that goes on in that business than three businesses with men only. I'm not so much forcing the issue as accepting the reality.

 

I am thinking of each of the women in leadership positions here, and they do not have those qualities. Mayor, police chief, State rep, store manager, store owner...they are patient, low key people who are very hard workers. Perhaps what you say is true where you are. In which case, I would suggest that it is your culture, values, and beliefs that are producing such women, not a universal absolute regarding the gender. Their men (all but one are in heterosexual marriages) range from extraordinarily to moderately social. One is a voracious socialite in his own right. Is he not a man? Is he unbalanced? Does he need a more typical man to balance his out, or is it ok that he is married to a woman who is a leader?

 

All I'm saying is that you don't get out in the world much, Ed, so when you make these statements, you are not speaking for the world, hard as you try to do so; you are only speaking of what your subculture produces.

 

Phanta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In January, 2010, it is close to equal, with women slightly in the lead overall at 56%. Hardly a landslide. Your thinking, and the thinking of your clan is mistakenly applied to the world.

 

Not only are there more women, they post 55% more than men......in other words, more gossipy.

 

The emphasis on what a man is and what a woman is--or worse, "should be", is functionally bankrupt. Even conservative Christianity, which is hellbent on instilling mass conformity, cannot resist this natural diversity, hence the variety of your cults. Psychologists and doctors rely on studies as guides for a starting points for treatment, realizing the needs of individuals are not defined, and should not be defined, by a trend. But as trends go, is 56% of facebook being female an overwhelming majority? I don't even see it. But, again, I am not a part of a rigid social group where everyone's role is strictly define and their natural diversity suppressed, so, here, our men may share their lives and ideas and such over facebook. And, indeed, they do.

 

You're missing the point sweetie...reality suggests that neither gender holds the complete unified package despite your pleadings. If I were arguing the opposite point, you would be spouting evolution at me. Remember 55% more posts.....yakity yakity stir the pot for no good reason shit.

 

Functionally meaningless. Detached from reality. Two people do not make a whole or complete being. If they are harmonious, they might make a better machine. However, there will still be troubles and triumphs. Real people; they are more complicated than this simple sense of balance and completeness defined by some idealized gender norms.

 

No, it is not functionally meaningless, I myself am testiment to what a greater ass I would be without my wife. And there are many many married people that will attest to this.

 

Now please excuse me, I have a gossip session, oops, ah eh, hair appointment. Love to chat, buh bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The emphasis on what a man is and what a woman is--or worse, "should be", is functionally bankrupt. Even conservative Christianity, which is hellbent on instilling mass conformity, cannot resist this natural diversity, hence the variety of your cults. Psychologists and doctors rely on studies as guides for a starting points for treatment, realizing the needs of individuals are not defined, and should not be defined, by a trend. But as trends go, is 56% of facebook being female an overwhelming majority? I don't even see it. But, again, I am not a part of a rigid social group where everyone's role is strictly define and their natural diversity suppressed, so, here, our men may share their lives and ideas and such over facebook. And, indeed, they do.

 

You're missing the point sweetie...reality suggests that neither gender holds the complete unified package despite your pleadings. If I were arguing the opposite point, you would be spouting evolution at me. Remember 55% more posts.....yakity yakity stir the pot for no good reason shit.

 

You stir the pot for no good reason all the time. You post here more often than just about anybody for just that purpose. Are you a woman? Babe, no person holds the complete, unified package. No dyad does, either. When we merge our efforts, we can cover more ground. It takes all sorts.

 

Functionally meaningless. Detached from reality. Two people do not make a whole or complete being. If they are harmonious, they might make a better machine. However, there will still be troubles and triumphs. Real people; they are more complicated than this simple sense of balance and completeness defined by some idealized gender norms.

 

No, it is not functionally meaningless, I myself am testiment to what a greater ass I would be without my wife. And there are many many married people that will attest to this.

 

Indeed, I have female friends who express they are better people for their wives. I am already better for my female housemate, and I've only lived with her for two weeks. I've been better for partnering with certain men. I am better in my community than the years I was isolated from my community. Two heads are better than one. Many hands make light work.

 

What's that have to do with your dangly bits?

 

Now please excuse me, I have a gossip session, oops, ah eh, hair appointment. Love to chat, buh bye.

 

The kiddies trim mine every couple of years. They get a kick out of getting to cut real hair!

 

Awaiting the next turn of your spoon in the shit-pot.

 

Phanta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I say we need to embrace the highest possible Truth within us and let it flow out in compassion to the world, transforming it into that very "image of God" you talk about with no understanding at all, it seems. You astound me sometimes. I hope there's something in you that can hear.

 

Hear what - your Pollyannish pronouncements? The TRUTH within us? Is that a joke??

I missed this earlier. Clearly you don't have ears to hear, nor eyes to see. That is becoming sadly apparent to me. I almost imagine Jesus talking to you as a 1st century person of his day and saying this to you. "He that has ears to hear let him hear." I'm sure he'd be patient with you as you had not yet developed enough yet to see and hear.

 

If you believe humans are created in the image of God, then they in fact would have that nature of the Divine within them. What does Jesus say in Matthew?

 

 

Jesus says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God"

 

 

Oh but no, Ray says the Bible says this is not possible to have a pure heart!

 

Ray says,"
The TRUTH within us? Is that a joke??
"

 

 

Jesus says, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called children of God"

 

 

But no! It is not possible to have the heart of a peacemaker because man is only capable of death. His heart if full of deceit and lies! According to Jesus they will be called the children of God by being peacemakers, by following what is inside them to follow. They don't join a damned religion in order to become one!

 

Ray says, "
The TRUTH within us? Is that a joke??
"

 

 

Jesus says, "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be filled"

 

 

But no, no one thirsts for righteousness according to Ray. We have to have that within us for that to happen and....

 

Ray says, "
The TRUTH within us? Is that a joke??
"

 

 

Jesus says, “You are the light of the world."

 

 

I note the word YOU. YOU are the light. That is something inside us.

 

 

Jesus says, "let your light shine before others"

 

 

I note the word YOUR. But this is not possible since we have nothing good in us according to this...

 

Ray says, "
The TRUTH within us? Is that a joke??
"

 

Because that is precisely what has landed Mankind where he is today - following that truth within us!

Well, according to Jesus there are those who do follow that truth within them. He calls those who listen and follow the Truth within them, the meek, the peacemakers, the pure in heart, those who thirst and hunger for righteousness, and the light of the world!

 

I'm sure you will in your ignorance say this is who we are if we become Christians, but that is not the context at all. He is not talking to his disciples but human beings standing around who are in fact capable of being good, pure in heart, peacemakers, etc. Those people, those who follow good, are called the Children of God. He is appealing to something INSIDE them, not something they get after they join your cult and magic happens.

 

You are such a worshiper of your religion you are blind to that light that is in others, everywhere!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it? I would say it is very realistic. I recognize the flaws and the improvements. All you see is the flaws. You my friend are nothing shy of an old school Western Romantic, dressed up in the clothes of a Christian, using its myths to support a "Paradise Lost" mythic reality that never existed, at any time in the past.

I think it's very realistic too Antlerman. It's better to take some responsibility and try to make things better in the world, even if it's just in the people around you. Much better than just throwing up your hands and quitting, lazily saying 'we're all doomed' and waiting for a mythical figure to magically make things right. That's like someone who commits suicide, they're so selfish that they show no respect for life and don't care about the innocent people they hurt. Christianity is so negative and lazy. If they really were moral they'd try to make the world a better place instead of hating it. That's not love, it's apathy.

 

chosendarknes - you've also chosen to be completely ignorant of history. Check Antlerman's reply, there is abundant evidence that the Church has been involved in a myriad of humanitarian projects for millennia that alleviate human suffering and improve living conditions. Plz, in the future, before you post - read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[No, I full recognize our primitive natures are still part of our past, and unlike you apparently, I also recognize a very dominant, rising moral consciousness that is globally calling for an end to it! Are you blind?

As I've said to you before, AM, despite my street creds as a certified pessimist / cynic, even I agree with you about the general and inexorable trend in human affairs. Christianity -- or at least any brand of it that takes Holy Writ seriously -- is incredibly pessimistic. It has to be in order to convince people they need the salvation it proffers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's very realistic too Antlerman. It's better to take some responsibility and try to make things better in the world, even if it's just in the people around you. Much better than just throwing up your hands and quitting, lazily saying 'we're all doomed' and waiting for a mythical figure to magically make things right. That's like someone who commits suicide, they're so selfish that they show no respect for life and don't care about the innocent people they hurt. Christianity is so negative and lazy. If they really were moral they'd try to make the world a better place instead of hating it. That's not love, it's apathy.

chosendarknes - you've also chosen to be completely ignorant of history. Check Antlerman's reply, there is abundant evidence that the Church has been involved in a myriad of humanitarian projects for millennia that alleviate human suffering and improve living conditions. Plz, in the future, before you post - read.

Ray, Ray, Ray. Where do you get the idea that AM was giving the church credit for humanitarian progress? He said the exact opposite.

 

Christianity is fundamentally pessimistic and defeatist. However, it's also schizophrenic, which is how it can view itself as caring and undertake various seeming benevolences -- but always with a catch. I knew a missionary for example who took food for the poor into the hinterlands of the Yucatan peninsula -- provided the people would watch Jesus movies and endure altar calls before dinner was served.

 

Church and parachurch organizations that do not mix proselytizing with benevolence probably would not meet with your doctrinal approval, I'm guessing. You would accuse them of promoting "social gospel" agendas, would you not? Or of the sin of ecumenism. Lukewarm, fit to be spewed out of Jesus' mouth, that sort of thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What??? :lmao: Christianity outlawed slavery? That's nutty. Western Democracy did. The Christian church was not the driving force behind this.

 

Surely you've heard of William Wilberforce and his allies in the British parliament? And John Brown and the abolitionists?

 

But, my point is and has been that whereas this was practiced and sanctioned as normal and acceptable in your idealized past, the Biblical days for example, both Old and New Testament times, it is not anymore. It is no longer sanctioned, and when we find it we fight to eliminate it. That was not so before. It is no longer acceptable practice. That Ray, is a fact. And that Ray is an improvement.

 

What idealized past are you referring to? I have never stated such, and I do not believe in any kind of idealized past. I believe that Christianity has had both direct and indirect influence which has catalyzed and encouraged the improvements in much of the Protestant Western World. Abuses against humanity have been opposed by evangelical Christians for millennia, though the evangelical orthodox Church had no real political power until the Protestant Reformation >> and the Judeo-Christian ethics were then carried to the Orient by Christian missionaries; ergo Sati and other abuses in India were outlawed.

 

Back in the day, Hitler and Stalin where also accepted as the way of the world.

 

This makes no sense - where are your quotations from history to back up this assertion of acceptance? Fact is, they were not accepted as the 'way of the world' proven by the fact that many nations allied themselves together to defeat Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, the Young Turks, etc. And Roosevelt with his back-door deals with Stalin, would not allow US troops to defeat the Soviet army, thus "the Cold War."

 

the fact that you are trying to deny improvements in the world with this "Yeah, but what about Hitler?," nonsense because you are in fact either unaware of it in yourself, or you are trying to not acknowledge it because you don't know how to integrate your Romanticism with the past with the higher morals of today. The latter is where I honestly believe you to be at. Denial. "Yeah, but what about X?" Deflection and distraction. "Yeah, but what about Hitler"?

 

When have I denied the improvements? I have applauded the improvements, and the Church has contributed past & present to these improvements - I've just simply and accurately classified them as Pyrrhic victories. Where have I stated any Romanticism with the past? The present far exceeds the past in some ways. And the only person in denial is you. You have convinced yourself that Mankind is improving >> yet you fail to admit that the last 100 years has been the most cruel and murderous of our history.

 

Do you understand this? The last 1.67% of human history (100 years) has been the bloodiest 100 years - with the possible exception of Ghenghis Khan. The final 0.0167 fraction of our existence has demonstrated the existence of loads of evil. The denial is in your court.

 

I appreciate your desire to attain the Omega Point perfection, but by thinking that Man will attain any level of perfection is clearly not borne out by the evidence. Christians have striven to be like Jesus Christ - to be loving, caring, generous, compassionate, forgiving, etc. There has been in the evangelical orthodox Church a missions movement which has reached out with the Gospel and humanitarian aid even to the remotest parts of planet Earth. Hearts and lives have been radically changed.

 

But, we know that the heart of man is sinful. Though we respect government officials as God's servants, we do not entrust ourselves to them, or any human leaders, as possessing the capability to bring about any Omega Point, or Utopia, or Heaven on Earth. We realize that only the return of Jesus Christ our LORD will deliver Man from sin, and usher in a Millennial Kingdom where justice and righteousness dwell.

 

However, because your faith in is Man, and in the 'Truth' within us, you are very susceptible to following human leaders who promise to lead you to this Omega Point. Your hope & trust in such leadership will only lead to disappointment and destruction. Remember the moral theme of MacBeth; "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Men throughout history have supported leaders who promised some kind of heaven on Earth; i.e., the Worker's Paradise of the Soviet Union. Those who trust in Man will reap the consequences; but like Judas who entrusted himself to his own goals and the religious leaders - by the time you find out you've trusted in sinful Man to your own demise, it will be too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What??? :lmao: Christianity outlawed slavery? That's nutty. Western Democracy did. The Christian church was not the driving force behind this.

 

Surely you've heard of William Wilberforce and his allies in the British parliament? And John Brown and the abolitionists?

 

But, my point is and has been that whereas this was practiced and sanctioned as normal and acceptable in your idealized past, the Biblical days for example, both Old and New Testament times, it is not anymore. It is no longer sanctioned, and when we find it we fight to eliminate it. That was not so before. It is no longer acceptable practice. That Ray, is a fact. And that Ray is an improvement.

 

What idealized past are you referring to? I have never stated such, and I do not believe in any kind of idealized past. I believe that Christianity has had both direct and indirect influence which has catalyzed and encouraged the improvements in much of the Protestant Western World. Abuses against humanity have been opposed by evangelical Christians for millennia, though the evangelical orthodox Church had no real political power until the Protestant Reformation >> and the Judeo-Christian ethics were then carried to the Orient by Christian missionaries; ergo Sati and other abuses in India were outlawed.

 

Back in the day, Hitler and Stalin where also accepted as the way of the world.

 

This makes no sense - where are your quotations from history to back up this assertion of acceptance? Fact is, they were not accepted as the 'way of the world' proven by the fact that many nations allied themselves together to defeat Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, the Young Turks, etc. And Roosevelt with his back-door deals with Stalin, would not allow US troops to defeat the Soviet army, thus "the Cold War."

 

the fact that you are trying to deny improvements in the world with this "Yeah, but what about Hitler?," nonsense because you are in fact either unaware of it in yourself, or you are trying to not acknowledge it because you don't know how to integrate your Romanticism with the past with the higher morals of today. The latter is where I honestly believe you to be at. Denial. "Yeah, but what about X?" Deflection and distraction. "Yeah, but what about Hitler"?

 

When have I denied the improvements? I have applauded the improvements, and the Church has contributed past & present to these improvements - I've just simply and accurately classified them as Pyrrhic victories. Where have I stated any Romanticism with the past? The present far exceeds the past in some ways. And the only person in denial is you. You have convinced yourself that Mankind is improving >> yet you fail to admit that the last 100 years has been the most cruel and murderous of our history.

 

Do you understand this? The last 1.67% of human history (100 years) has been the bloodiest 100 years - with the possible exception of Ghenghis Khan. The final 0.0167 fraction of our existence has demonstrated the existence of loads of evil. The denial is in your court.

 

I appreciate your desire to attain the Omega Point perfection, but by thinking that Man will attain any level of perfection is clearly not borne out by the evidence. Christians have striven to be like Jesus Christ - to be loving, caring, generous, compassionate, forgiving, etc. There has been in the evangelical orthodox Church a missions movement which has reached out with the Gospel and humanitarian aid even to the remotest parts of planet Earth. Hearts and lives have been radically changed.

 

But, we know that the heart of man is sinful. Though we respect government officials as God's servants, we do not entrust ourselves to them, or any human leaders, as possessing the capability to bring about any Omega Point, or Utopia, or Heaven on Earth. We realize that only the return of Jesus Christ our LORD will deliver Man from sin, and usher in a Millennial Kingdom where justice and righteousness dwell.

 

However, because your faith in is Man, and in the 'Truth' within us, you are very susceptible to following human leaders who promise to lead you to this Omega Point. Your hope & trust in such leadership will only lead to disappointment and destruction. Remember the moral theme of MacBeth; "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Men throughout history have supported leaders who promised some kind of heaven on Earth; i.e., the Worker's Paradise of the Soviet Union. Those who trust in Man will reap the consequences; but like Judas who entrusted himself to his own goals and the religious leaders - by the time you find out you've trusted in sinful Man to your own demise, it will be too late.

 

You are flat out wrong. Here is a source that proves so. We're going to need a source for your claims.

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What??? :lmao: Christianity outlawed slavery? That's nutty. Western Democracy did. The Christian church was not the driving force behind this.

 

Surely you've heard of William Wilberforce and his allies in the British parliament? And John Brown and the abolitionists?

That a man, or various groups of people find a cause worthwhile and lend their support behind it is normal. That some of them are evangelical Christians is also, statistically normal. Not everyone in the Abolitionist movements were evangelical Christians, but supported it nonetheless. This is not, nor was the Christian Church bringing about an end to slavery. It was Western Democracy, as I said, that had a mixture of people including individual Christians.

 

If you look at the Church itself, including Evangelical Christians, many opposed freeing slaves. If it Christianity as a system is to be sole credit here, then you can't account for those as Christians who opposed it. Besides, in my understanding, many of the Abolitionists, wanted to end slavery and fought for it because of political economic reasons, not moral ones! That class of free labor was taking American jobs from them! Send them back home and give the jobs to Americans! I wonder where some of these shining star Evangelical Christians fell on that scale of things? Do you know? Even so, again that some people who do the right thing are Christians is not Christianity doing it.

 

But, my point is and has been that whereas this was practiced and sanctioned as normal and acceptable in your idealized past, the Biblical days for example, both Old and New Testament times, it is not anymore. It is no longer sanctioned, and when we find it we fight to eliminate it. That was not so before. It is no longer acceptable practice. That Ray, is a fact. And that Ray is an improvement.

 

What idealized past are you referring to?

You are a fundamentalist, no? Fundamentalism is the goal of getting back to the fundamentals of a movement or cultures past. Back to the past glories, where they did things right! That is in essence, what Western Romanticism as a movement was about. Turning back the hands of change to that prior pristine state. I will contend that American Fundamentalism was influenced in this mentality in its own response to Modernity entering into religion, in the same way Romanticism flooded our own culture in response to it on a secular level.

 

Christians are products of their culture, and it very much would have influenced them in the naive belief that any such past ever did exist. They Romanticized it. You Romanticize the Bible and early Christianity as a magical Faith from God. That is a Romantic Myth. It is idealizing the past, making it something more than it was. It's like the New Age movement looking for Ancient Wisdom to guide us today. No different. It's unrealistic, and looking the wrong direction. The past is helpful, no doubt. But they as we are all part of an ongoing process, that process called evolution.

 

Back in the day, Hitler and Stalin where also accepted as the way of the world.

 

This makes no sense - where are your quotations from history to back up this assertion of acceptance? Fact is, they were not accepted as the 'way of the world' proven by the fact that many nations allied themselves together to defeat Hitler, Pol Pot, Mussolini, the Young Turks, etc. And Roosevelt with his back-door deals with Stalin, would not allow US troops to defeat the Soviet army, thus "the Cold War."

My poorly worded sentence there has inadvertently helped you make my point for me. :) What I meant to say was that "Back in the day, (the good old past of Moses and Joshua that is), Hitler and Stalin were also accepted as the way of the world." I should have said "they would have been accepted" in order to place the time reference more clearly. My mistake, but my gain as well....

 

So here in your refutation of how you heard what I was saying, you cite many non-Christians, the world over, all rising up to condemn these despots. Just look at what's happened in the Middle East and a phenomenal example of people rising up against them today! So all of these Christians and Non-Christians, the world over, have and are operating off an improvement in moral standards. Freedom! But back in the day... back in Paul's day for example, the instruction was to remain a slave and not upset the social system. That, from who you Romanticize as having the pure truth, the only Truth.

 

It's all a scale in history towards higher and more inclusive moral standards for all. I can and will delineate this for you historically if you like, but that will take a little time later on. Suffice to say for now, there is a clear, marked pattern of development from early man to modern man that follows what we see in a microcosm example in the developmental patterns, which are universal by the way, in all human children. From body identity, to a fully self-actualized individual. It's all about a lessening of egocentrism, moving more and more out and away from self and the center, to self in the world.

 

Christianity itself these days in the Modern world is poised teetering between narcissism and self-realization. It really depends on which group you're talking about. I place American Conservative Evangelical Christianity much more in the Regressive, narcissist camp, with some pull towards maturing causing a spiritual conflict for them. There are others who are able to see "God" in the world as vital in other religions and human movements as in their own. You don't however. "He who has ears to hear....."

 

You have convinced yourself that Mankind is improving >> yet you fail to admit that the last 100 years has been the most cruel and murderous of our history.

I haven't denied this at all. You need to re-read what I've written. I'm saying that that is nothing new. It's not a new level of cruelty. The only difference is that the scale of destruction is greater due to the size of the stones we have through our technologies to destroy others with. But it's not a new, deeper evil than the first when we treated other humans as animals because they weren't of our own bloodlines. Book of Joshua, anyone?

 

If you are right, that we are worse in our consious mind, then please, please show me where we were better in the past? I have and am showing improvements. Your theology demands that people follow the opposite pattern, from good to worse. That is simply not true, nor supported by the evidence.

 

However, because your faith in is Man, and in the 'Truth' within us, you are very susceptible to following human leaders who promise to lead you to this Omega Point.

I see this as betraying that you simply don't understand at all where I am coming from, nor what any or all of this means. Please see my signature line below - you can't see, apparently. I do not have faith in Man. I am not in anyway following leaders to promise truth. What you are doing is taking how you see the world, and how you approach it and are projecting yourself on to me. You look for an Answer from an Authority. That is abundantly clear. You just call that Authority God, and create a supporting mythic structure of Biblical Infallibility and Apostolic Succession to support it.

 

I don't function like that. I've moved beyond that, I've evolved beyond that prior-stage, that more adolescent stage. How can I open you to see that? I don't know. Is it possible? I think we just have to evolve, to grow, to develop into that more mature stage of mind.

 

What do I have faith in? It's really not an appropriate question. Experience replaces faith.

 

 

 

I have to go for now, but might address a couple more points later....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are flat out wrong. Here is a source that proves so. We're going to need a source for your claims.

 

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Thank you for the link! Yes, Ray you need to listen to that. I like the example also of how our forms of punishment have moved from cutting off someone's ears, their tongues, their hands, etc, to time in jails or a issuing a fine as a penalty shows a decrease in our violent natures.

 

Yes Ray, listen to that and I'll offer more thoughts to show how what I said originally is very true that your theology has it upside down. Your myths were how people understood the world in their day and helped translate it for them. Our knowledge of facts shows a different picture, and what is needed now is some way to translate it for us currently, just as your system did in its day - back when people were more violent and less evolved.

 

 

P.S. If you look at his explanation #4 offered by Pete Singer, that is a lot of where I am coming from in my talk about evolution. It follows the developmental patterns of self-identification exampled in human childhood development, from body-self, fused with the environment, to a narcissistic "me!" identification, to a group-centric identification of "I am a Christian!", to a global-centric identification, and so on. I think it is entirely reasonable, and supported evidentially, to understand the human species likewise evolved their consciousness over time in this very same way, the exact same pattern. It seem ludicrous to assume we just woke up one day and had the capabilities we do today that have developed over millennia.

 

I also don't believe just imposing modern systems alone would transform the species that way. I believe they moved hand in hand. You could not take an early hunter-gatherer, or the first agricultural man and drop him into our Modern Western civilization and watch him become us! It's completely out of context for his developmental stage. This is how Ray's premodern myth has it upside down. In his world, the past was more evolved. He has fully evolved humans existing in the past, like you might imagine a newborn baby with a pipe in its mouth philosophizing about life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God"

 

 

Oh but no, Ray says the Bible says this is not possible to have a pure heart!

 

Who are the pure in heart K? You need to clarify how you make this judgement valid before just spouting it as truth. Please.

 

 

They don't join a damned religion in order to become one!

 

Again, this is the difference in beliefs. Christianity is pretty clear that those pure in heart and peacemakers are an entity of Christ.....not just your average subscriber to good. Perhaps there is no difference in your mind.

 

So make your case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus says, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God"

 

 

Oh but no, Ray says the Bible says this is not possible to have a pure heart!

 

Who are the pure in heart K? You need to clarify how you make this judgement valid before just spouting it as truth. Please.

I don't just spout anything. I answered your question before you asked it. See here in that same post:

 

I'm sure you will in your ignorance say this is who we are if we become Christians, but that is not the context at all. He is not talking to his disciples but human beings standing around who are in fact
capable
of being good, pure in heart, peacemakers, etc. Those people, those who follow good, are called the Children of God. He is appealing to something INSIDE them, not something they get after they join your cult and magic happens.

 

Answer, those with a pure heart. Humans. Those who have a pure heart. Surely you're not so naive as to take that to mean a convert to a religion, are you? Follow the order... 1. Pure heart 2. See God. What's that? If you, inside, have a pure heart, then 2. you will see God. Internal. Inside you. Within you. Get it yet?

 

They don't join a damned religion in order to become one!

 

Again, this is the difference in beliefs. Christianity is pretty clear that those pure in heart and peacemakers are an entity of Christ.....not just your average subscriber to good. Perhaps there is no difference in your mind.

Well, that's the problem with your religion then! :HaHa: It rejects pure hearts based on religious affiliations! How possibly more carnally minded can you get, judging according to the flesh?

 

BTW, "Average subscriber to good"? :shrug: No, I see this to speak of an actual doer of good. "Blessed are the peacemakers". Not those who simply "subscribe". :HaHa: What on earth do you mean here? Just your 'average good"? Run of the mill, just plain good? You don't see the silliness in that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.