Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Choosing a faith
Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 3721 of 3731 (918935)
06-09-2024 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3720 by Tanypteryx
06-09-2024 11:32 AM


Re: Fundie cat fight over made-up stuff
Tanypteryx writes in Message 3720:
Ok, I got South Carolina and Electron Beam, but TF doesn't make any sense at all.
Yes, exactly. I'm trying to protect candle2's tender sensibilities. We shouldn't tell him the truth, that magic isn't real, and that South Carolina, the Electron Beam and the Table Fan don't exist.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3720 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-09-2024 11:32 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3722 by Tanypteryx, posted 06-09-2024 7:36 PM Percy has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4500
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 3722 of 3731 (918940)
06-09-2024 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 3721 by Percy
06-09-2024 2:57 PM


Re: Fundie cat fight over made-up stuff
Table Fan, I can't believe I didn't get that!
ABE:
tender sensibilities.
I missed this earlier, pretty funny.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3
If you are going to argue that evolution is false because it resembles your own beliefs then perhaps you should rethink your argument. - - Taq

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3721 by Percy, posted 06-09-2024 2:57 PM Percy has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


(1)
Message 3723 of 3731 (918979)
06-11-2024 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 3710 by candle2
06-07-2024 4:19 PM


Re: Fundie cat fight over made-up stuff
candle2 writes:
Magicians sometimes will show us the secret to certain
tricks. This is to have us believe that all magic is
performed by natural means.
Worth mentioning the JREF Prize.
One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia
One million dollars to anyone who could demonstrate supernatural or paranormal abilities. The one catch is that the test would be set up by magicians who know all of the tricks of the trade. James Randi himself had spent much of his life debunking magicians who falsely claimed to have supernatural powers. One of my favorites was when he showed Barbara Walters how Uri Geller was able to bend keys using sleight of hand. What still amazes me is that Randi would get takers, people who would really claim to have supernatural powers that were quickly debunked by Randi right in front of everyone. The psychology of those people has always fascinated me.
Wouldn't you know it, no one was ever able to claim the prize. You would surely think that someone making a bit of money with these supernatural powers in front of crowds would be willing to win 1 million for repeating the same thing in front of a few people. But no, never happened.
It also saddens me a bit that we no longer have James Randi with us. We need more people like him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3710 by candle2, posted 06-07-2024 4:19 PM candle2 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3724 by dwise1, posted 06-11-2024 3:15 PM Taq has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5969
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 3724 of 3731 (918980)
06-11-2024 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 3723 by Taq
06-11-2024 1:57 PM


Re: Fundie cat fight over made-up stuff
Worth mentioning the JREF Prize.
One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge - Wikipedia
One million dollars to anyone who could demonstrate supernatural or paranormal abilities.
According to candle2, magicians have sold their souls to gain supernatural powers. To what end, c2? For fame and fortune, obviously! So what better way to gain both fame and fortune (one million dollars immediately) than to take Randi up on his offer and demonstrate for all to see that you truly possess supernatural powers?
So why didn't they? I don't mean the fakes who did try and failed completely, but rather c2's "magicians who actually did sell their souls". With so much fame and fortune just sitting there waiting for them to grab, why did they stay as far away as possible? Obviously, because they themselves are lying fakes.
We see the same thing with creationists who claim to disprove virtually all of science, something that would win them the Nobel Prize (AKA "fame and fortune"). And besides winning the Nobel Prize (and the prize money in addition to the gold in the medal (Marie Curie famously cashed in the gold in her Nobel medals in order to buy field X-ray equipment to prevent unnecessary limb amputations in WWI)), they would also succeed in serving their god by vanquishing their arch-enemy, evolution.
So why don't creationists present their disproof of science but instead stay far away from even talking with scientists? Same reason why "magicians using actual supernatural powers" stayed far away from Randi: because they are dishonest lying fakes.
Same thing with Trump's "Stop the Steal" lawyers who lied (and continue to lie) to the public about "election fraud", but the moment they had to appear in court before a judge then they refused to make any mention of election fraud. Same reason: because while they are free to lie to the public all they want, lying to the judge would get them disbarred. Like creationists and c2's magicians, they can get away with lying to the rubes, but not with lying to professionals who can see through their lies and deception.
Instead, they (both creationists and said magicians and Trumpists) just go on the rube circuit and fleece those gullible idiots for all they can. And unfortunately there is a never-ending supply of gullible idiots who either don't know how thoroughly discredited those grifters are or, worse, don't care.
quote:
"The problem with trying to design something that's idiot-proof is that Nature keeps making better idiots."
and
"A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools."
(Douglas Adams)
 

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3723 by Taq, posted 06-11-2024 1:57 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3725 by jar, posted 06-11-2024 3:36 PM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 3726 by Taq, posted 06-11-2024 3:56 PM dwise1 has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34051
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 3725 of 3731 (918981)
06-11-2024 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 3724 by dwise1
06-11-2024 3:15 PM


Re: Fundie cat fight over made-up stuff
dwise1 writes:
Instead, they (both creationists and said magicians and Trumpists) just go on the rube circuit and fleece those gullible idiots for all they can. And unfortunately there is a never-ending supply of gullible idiots who either don't know how thoroughly discredited those grifters are or, worse, don't care.
Same reason Willy Sutton robbed banks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3724 by dwise1, posted 06-11-2024 3:15 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 3726 of 3731 (918982)
06-11-2024 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 3724 by dwise1
06-11-2024 3:15 PM


Re: Fundie cat fight over made-up stuff
dwise1 writes:
So why didn't they? I don't mean the fakes who did try and failed completely, but rather c2's "magicians who actually did sell their souls". With so much fame and fortune just sitting there waiting for them to grab, why did they stay as far away as possible? Obviously, because they themselves are lying fakes.
To be fair, the magicians c2 is talking about do not claim to have supernatural powers. They are magicians, just like the Amazing Randi was, and Randi had no issue with these folks.
Instead, they (both creationists and said magicians and Trumpists) just go on the rube circuit and fleece those gullible idiots for all they can. And unfortunately there is a never-ending supply of gullible idiots who either don't know how thoroughly discredited those grifters are or, worse, don't care.
Yep. It helps us understand why Essential Oils have made some people millionaires many times over.
On the bright side, the rubes have helped some people see the light. When they see people in their congregation falling for such obvious scams it makes them question their own religious beliefs. Once you start down the road of skepticism it can be hard to turn back.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3724 by dwise1, posted 06-11-2024 3:15 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3727 by dwise1, posted 06-11-2024 9:27 PM Taq has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5969
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 3727 of 3731 (918987)
06-11-2024 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 3726 by Taq
06-11-2024 3:56 PM


Re: Fundie cat fight over made-up stuff
To be fair, the magicians c2 is talking about do not claim to have supernatural powers.
No, those are not the magicians that c2 is talking about, but rather he is claiming the existence of magicians exercising actual supernatural powers that they obtain from demons. In Message 3710 he even excluded real magicians who perform tricks:
candle2 writes in Message 3710:
Not all magicians have made pacts with demons. In fact,
the percentage is quite low.
‚Äč
But, demons make pacts with certain individuals. They
want us to believe that Jesus was just a magician.
Even though he knows that magicians employ tricks to make it appear that they are using supernatural powers, he also believes that some of them do indeed use supernatural powers. Those are the ones he's talking about, not actual magicians who do not possess such powers and so employ tricks.
Of course, magicians with actual supernatural powers do not exist.
For the stage magician, presenting his tricks as if he had supernatural powers is part of the act, part of the show. And everybody is in on the act with even the audience playing along ... except for little children and gullible rubes who actually think it's real.
candle2 is one such gullible rube.
As for charlatans who claim to possess supernatural powers, we see many Christian preachers playing that role. Especially faith-healers, though speakers-in-tongues and snake-handlers also fall in that category.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3726 by Taq, posted 06-11-2024 3:56 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3728 by Zucadragon, posted 06-12-2024 5:30 AM dwise1 has replied
 Message 3729 by Taq, posted 06-12-2024 11:58 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Zucadragon
Member
Posts: 91
From: Netherlands
Joined: 06-28-2006
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 3728 of 3731 (918989)
06-12-2024 5:30 AM
Reply to: Message 3727 by dwise1
06-11-2024 9:27 PM


Re: Fundie cat fight over made-up stuff
I'd really love for C2 to give one, or even more examples of magicians he deems are using demonic powers, that would make it so much easier to debunk, much more fun too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3727 by dwise1, posted 06-11-2024 9:27 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3730 by dwise1, posted 06-12-2024 1:09 PM Zucadragon has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.7


Message 3729 of 3731 (918997)
06-12-2024 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 3727 by dwise1
06-11-2024 9:27 PM


Re: Fundie cat fight over made-up stuff
dwise1 writes:
No, those are not the magicians that c2 is talking about, but rather he is claiming the existence of magicians exercising actual supernatural powers that they obtain from demons.
James Randi was also not going after standard magicians who bumpkins thought were using supernatural magic. James Randi only went after the hucksters who told their audience that they had paranormal or supernatural powers. This is why Randi and Uri Geller crossed paths on many occasions.
As for charlatans who claim to possess supernatural powers, we see many Christian preachers playing that role. Especially faith-healers, though speakers-in-tongues and snake-handlers also fall in that category.
James Randi was an author on a book about faith healers:
The Faith Healers - Wikipedia

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3727 by dwise1, posted 06-11-2024 9:27 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5969
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 3730 of 3731 (918998)
06-12-2024 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 3728 by Zucadragon
06-12-2024 5:30 AM


Re: Fundie cat fight over made-up stuff
I'd really love for C2 to give one, or even more examples of magicians he deems are using demonic powers, ...
Judging from his history here, that will never happen. Instead of answering our questions or considering our requests for more information (including examples), he has always evaded and deflected, most often with long "sermons" of his made-up stuff.
Worse, he also has a history of tossing out random words and then lie to our faces that those are "links" to more information. He has never ever even tried to post any links here, but rather has just lied about it.
That's what we have to deal with. On the positive side, he thoroughly discredits his own side. As has been observed by Conrad Hyers: " ... biblical literalism, from its earlier flat-earth and geocentric forms to its recent young-earth and flood-geology forms, is one of the major causes of atheism and materialism."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3728 by Zucadragon, posted 06-12-2024 5:30 AM Zucadragon has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5969
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 3731 of 3731 (919027)
06-15-2024 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 2487 by Phat
06-21-2023 11:42 PM


Re: My Deconversion Story, Again
Sorry for not having gotten back to you on this for so long (nearly one year), but lots of interruptions. I had an hour and a half wait before class at OLLI, so I started taking care of this.
You seem to be confused over parts of my deconversion story, which was basically that, in order to learn what I was supposed to believe, I started reading the Bible from start to finish and I didn't get very far before realizing that I couldn't believe what I was reading. So since I couldn't believe what I was supposed to in order to be a Christian, I left. That freed me to learn more about Christianity and its history, which did even more to recommend against it. Add to that my experience with the Jesus Freak Movement (c. 1970) and creationism as well as repeated experiences with believers. So over the next half century my decision has been supported by further observation and experience.
Simple and direct enough, yet you remain confused as evidenced by your odd questions, which I will address now.
First, I want to go deeper into how you actually read the Bible and rejected all of it.
Are you under the impression that I had read the Bible in its entirety and then rejected it after years of research and analysis comparable to post-doctoral work? When I was about 12 years old? I was a smart kid, but not that smart.
Think about what it takes to deem a book to be nonsense, or garbage -- DISCLAIMER: I am not stating that the Bible is nonsense or garbage (even though it could be considered to be such), but rather using works of actual nonsensical garbage to make the point that a complete analysis is not necessary to reject a work of questionable quality. You don't need to read an entire book before you could even begin to form an opinion of its worth. For example, you don't need to read all of QAnon conspiracy theories in their total entirety (followed by extensive and intensive research into every single claim) before you could see the obvious truth that it's nonsensical bullshit. Same with the GOP's repeated echoing of Russian disinformation (eg, a running joke when reporting on Sen. Ron Johnson's statements is that the news service had to pay extra to have it translated from the original Russian). Same with most creationist presentations: as soon as they repeated the same tired old bullshit lies, you know exactly what script they're reading from.
I did not need to read the entire Bible -- I made it about half-way through the fifty chapters of Genesis as I seem to recall from about 60 years ago -- before realizing that I simply could not believe what it was saying. Remember that I had engaged in that evolution on the basis of a naïve assumption that I was expected to believe everything that the Bible says and I quickly found that I couldn't believe it. IOW, I was proceeding from a naïvely literalist assumption and found it untenable, so imagine what I thought half a decade later when I encountered the biblical literalism being pushed by the Jesus Freaks (c. 1969); to quote myself: "I started reading the Bible and I couldn't believe what I was reading, but then I learned what the Jesus Freaks believed and I really couldn't believe what I was hearing."
So basically it's not a question of rejecting something based on its intrinsic value/validity, but rather basing it on a false premise/assumption; eg, naïve biblical literalism. It's the same as yet another one of my unanswered questions to creationists: If your theology is found to be wrong, does that really disprove "God" or does it just disprove your theology (which turned out to be wrong). So because the universe (AKA "Creation") is found to be billions (109) of years old (just as the Creator had created it), if your YEC theology falsely claims that if the world is older than 10,000 years then that would disprove "God" (AKA the Creator) then you will have disproved "God". But does that actually disprove "God"? Or does it actually and merely disprove your false YEC theology?
So again, my story in summary:
  1. About a year after I was baptized at circa 11 years of age, I decided that I needed to get serious about this religion stuff and needed to learn what I was supposed to believe. After years of Sunday School and Vacation Bible School and Released Time Religious Education, I did know that I was supposed to believe what the Bible says, so I decided that the next step was to see what the Bible says. So I started reading the Bible from start to finish.
  2. I quickly found (ie, within the first 20-30 chapters) that I simply could not believe what I was reading -- actually, that had already happened within the first ten chapters, but I chose to stick it out for as long as I could.
    Mind you, I had entered into that evolution on a false premise: biblical literalism. Also, I did this completely on my own without guidance, a key point for anyone schooled in how to set up a Bible study plan.
  3. With the conclusion (based on that false premise) that I could not believe what I assumed I was required to, my only honest choice was to leave. Which I did.
    Again, that was admittedly based on a false premise. But any choice made has still been made regardless of how sound the reasons are.
  4. Over the next half decade, I learned more of the long and bloody history of Christianity, which did nothing to recommend it. I also became increasingly disgusted by their blatant hypocrisy. And that was before they started going full-blown Bozo after 1980.
  5. The Jesus Freak Movement cemented my separation from Christianity with their extreme theology that made absolutely no sense. That was coupled with my foreign language experience and continued study of religion(s) and of the Bible(s) and its history. My familiarity with the process and problems of translation exposed the lie of fallible humans being able to transmit and translate perfectly for millennia. Remember that every act of translation is an act of fallible human interpretation, and according to Jesus Freak teachings Man corrupts everything that He touches, but they make an exception and believe in human infallibility when it comes to translating the Bible. Sorry, I cannot believe in human infallibility; it makes absolutely no sense.
    There was also my brief dabbling with the supernatural in college which included studying astrology. I quickly discovered the problems of trying to work with the supernatural; ie, working with something that is impossible to test. Those lessons have guided me and informed my agnosticism (ie, the supernatural is unknowable) ever since.
  6. 1980 brought us the Radical Religious Right (RRR) and its crusade against "Secular Humanism", a boogeyman strawman of their own invention. That led me to learning about the Christian Reconstructionists (CRists) dedicated to replacing the US Constitution with an Old Testament theocracy. Despite theological disagreement with the RRR (pre-millennialism v. post-millennialism), the CRists served as political inspiration and mentors for the RRR as the RRR became more politically motivated to impose their beliefs on everybody through the force of law.
    Yes, those are the roots of what's now referred to as "Christian Nationalism."
  7. Shortly thereafter, in 1981, I also encountered creationism for the second time. As I related in my Why I Oppose Creation Science (or, How I got to Here from There), I had heard about YEC with the Jesus Freaks c. 1970, but that was mostly only broad vague claims about there being evidence for a young earth and for Noah's Flood. Once I was told two specific claims: 1) living fresh-water clams carbon-dated to be thousands of years old, and 2) a NASA computer found Joshua's Lost Day. I was skeptic of the clams claim but didn't find the article being misrepresented until c. 1990, but I immediately knew that the NASA claim was utterly false since it ascribed magical powers to computers that they simply do not possess (even in 1970 when the public had no access to computers I could smell the bullshit of that claim and I was surprised when my sister-in-law told me of reading it in the Sunday newspaper magazine in the mid-1990's).
    If you are not familiar with the NASA computer claim, read this essay by a practicing Christian and scientist, Allan H. Harvey (AKA steamdoc since he specialized in the physics of water), Thoughts on "Joshua's Long Day". You can find a more complete list of his essays at Writings of Allan H. Harvey -- his more recent essays, which I have not read yet, seem to that turned to the subject of Christian Nationalism.
    In 1981 Dr. Duane Gish of the ICR gave a presentation at the local university. I had duty that night so I could not attend, but it sparked my curiosity. I was frankly surprised that creationism was still around, so I guessed that there must be something to it after all and I decided to learn what they had to say. I quickly learned that all they had were lies and that started four decades of studying and discussion "creation science". The rest, as they say, is history, which I described in my essay linked to above, Why I Oppose Creation Science (or, How I got to Here from There).
So in 25 words or less, reading the Bible from the beginning and not being able to believe what I was reading freed me and my mind from being trapped in that religion. I was then free to learn more about it and to think critically about it. Reading the Bible did not turn me into an atheist directly, but rather it removed the biases and mental constraints that prevent believers from honest thinking and evaluation of their religion. (don't bother to count the words; I obviously went over the limit)
But I have told you all that before, so how is it that you still cannot understand any of it? What is it that you still do not get?
 
An added note. Part of the problem of reading the Bible is that it requires careful guidance so that you read and see only what you are supposed to read and see, not what's actually there. Remember, every church/denomination/sect imposes its theology on the Bible, imposing what they teach the Bible says instead of what it actually says. That means that Bible study requires that the student be carefully instructed in his church's own unique interpretation of the Bible, including which passages are to be read and which are to be ignored. Therefore, the unsupervised reading of the Bible on your own is a recipe for disaster.
Or to put it in a warning: Do not leave your kid alone with a Bible.
I found (and have lost track of) an interesting YouTube video by an ex-Christian reviewing a Christian video discussing different approaches to Bible study. The key to all the "good" approaches is that you follow carefully prepared study plans which direct you to key passages and which guide you through the "correct" interpretation. According to the video being critiqued, the worst approach is to try to read the Bible from start to finish.
Corollary is something I was told on CompuServe related to the Jesus Freak Movement, which was the sudden infusion (nay, flood) of burned-out hippies getting "hooked on Jesus" (literally a bumper sticker from that time) and converting to fundamentalism. According to him, those churches had a long history of life-long study of the Bible starting as young children; IOW, actual study of the entire Bible albeit with their unique interpretation. Now that they suddenly had the vast majority of their congregations being total newbies who had to be taught from scratch, they needed to change their approach drastically to bring all these new members up to speed. So instead of careful instruction over extended periods of time they had to switch over to crash courses, kind of analogous to going from preparing officers with four-year military academies to pumping out "90-day wonders" through OCS and OTS to putting specialists (eg, medical officers) through a couple weeks of "fork and knife school" to instantaneous battle-field commissions.
As a result, those fundamentalist churches have had their entire culture changed. They are now stuck with their entire training programs being to teach a small set of verses with the absolute interpretation while ignoring the vast majority of what the Bible actually says (ignoring both context and the vast array of different possible interpretations). They enjoyed becoming vast mega-churches with all the wealth and power that brings them, but at the cost of their souls. They think it's a good deal.
I can see a guy who goes to marriage counseling, gets handed authoritarianism by Christian sources, rejects the whole kit and kaboodle of Christian thinking, and becomes reinforcingly more of a critical thinker.
Huh? What does that have to do with anything? And you saying "getting handed authoritarianism" is completely wrong, because that is not even remotely what happened.
Also, that had nothing to do with turning me into an atheist since it happened long after I had left Christianity and started becoming an atheist, four decades after. At most that experience had verified and reinforced what I had already known (like sampling a really disgusting dish or drink that you had already learned is disgusting does not teach you that it is disgusting, but rather just verifies that your initial assessment was correct.
Your lack of sense of the passage of time (which I've seen also manifest in other Christians; what is it about Christianity that breaks that part of the believer's brain?) reminds me of a creationist I have the misfortune of knowing who insists the atheists just put on an act because they hate God. After learning of my son's death, he absolutely insisted that the reason for my atheism was that I hated God because I blamed him for the death of my son. And he continued to insist on that even after I pointed out that the death of my son could not possibly be the reason for my having become an atheist because that had happened forty years before his death. Basically, for event/condition A to have been caused by some event B, then B had to have preceded A temporally; that's how time works. You cannot play "wibbly-wobbly, timey-wimey" if you do not have an operational time machine (eg, a TARDIS). Without benefit of a TARDIS, how could anything be caused by something that happened long afterwards? That would be like blaming Lincoln's assassination on the Manhattan Project (development of the atomic bomb). And for an atheist, blaming "God" would be like blaming Thor (or any other fictional god, which is to say any other god -- though I do blame my son's mother who had put that damned gun in his hands in direct defiant disregard for my concern for the safety of my family).
Besides, the story about going through DivorceCare was to illustrate the difference between Christian counselors and councilors for normals and how that difference reflects how Dan Barker's, former fundamentalist preacher now "America's Most Prominent Atheist", point that "fundamentalism is when your theology becomes your psychology". Hence, fundies need their own "Christian counselors" since they think differently than normals do; eg, counselors for normals can motivate patients with the actual benefits of treatment whereas fundies, unable to comprehend the actual benefits, instead have to be told "Because that's what Jesus wants you to do.", something that normals find meaningless and useless. In addition, DivorceCare explicitly taught: "You can never recover from divorce; only Jesus can help you recover." So if you're not a Christian you're just screwed? OK, well f*** you too, buddy!
I cant understand, however, why it is so hard to believe in Jesus Christ as Gods character.
Why is it so hard for you to believe in the Buddha-nature? Simple, because you are not a Buddhist. Buddhist teachings and issues are meaningless to you.
Same with non-Christians: Christian worries are meaningless to us. I remember a Christian co-worker asking me how atheists respond to the burning issue of justification (the event or process by which sinners are made or declared to be righteous in the sight of God), to which my unspoken reply would be, "What atheist would give a flying f*** about that non-existent 'issue'?." You may as well expect an atheist to lie awake at night worrying about transubstantiation (ie, do the bread and wine at Communion literally transform into the flesh and blood of Christ?). Or whether Jesus was of the same or similar substance as the Father (a burning issue going into the Council of Nicaea).
Frankly, it would make much more sense to worry about how to tell whether someone is worthy enough to be able to wield Mjönir. Captain America was worthy, but what about a elevator you set Mjönir down in (Cap: "Elevator's not worthy.").
Your question is important to you because you're a fan-boy. We're not fan-boys, so we couldn't give a flying f***. It's a stupid meaningless question.
Is it the whole logical argument from older religions about anthropomorphizing God?
Is it witnessing the bad behavior of self-professed believers?
For you, I know that the pattern of lies and denials among creationists was notable, but
Why this carries over into believers who have no problems with evolution mystifies me.
Huh? What the f*** are you talking about?
Seriously! I have no idea where that one is coming from. I do not recall ever having expressed having any issues with believers who have no problems with evolution, but rather I have argued for that. There is no inherent conflict between evolution and divine creation. The real world is here regardless of how it got here, whether through some act of divine creation or through natural processes. Indeed, even the world coming about through natural processes does not conflict with the idea of divine creation, since an actual believer in Creation (as opposed to a creationist) would see that even those natural processes would have also been created to work as they do. And evolution exists because life exists and works the way that it does. Indeed, no one could explain how life could exist without evolution, since evolution is the total effects and consequences of life doing what life does. It is impossible to separate the two.
Of course, creationists don't believe in the Creation and its Creator, but rather in a false theology that denies the Creation. Their creationist theology makes demonstrably false claims about the Creation and insist that if their theology's assertions about the Creation are wrong (which they demonstrably are) then that disproves "God". They claim to be fighting against "evolution", but nothing they say about that "evolution" has anything to do with actual evolution. And because they make their faith dependent on denying reality (AKA the Creation), all they have to support their position are lies and deception.
Creationists are the ones I have problems with, but not with believers in an actual Creation, even though I do not share their beliefs. I thought that I had made that quite clear by now.
I think I know the answer, though it is but a guess. A lot of you disapprove of conservatives.
No idea what you're talking about. What are conservatives supposed to have to do with any of this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2487 by Phat, posted 06-21-2023 11:42 PM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024