Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since I didn't write that - it came from you, I'm lead to believe that you have been nurturing resentment for feeling blamed for things but never credit for the good you do. I can relate - and I think we could agree that some religious ideas promote such punitive shame, which is actually damning (keeping us back from) exploring the kingdom of God within - aka our "psychology" - study of the soul.
"No, it was people doing that. People are the hands of God - for good or bad. "
It is a Rhetorical trick to pretend that not writing the exact words means that isn't what you said. In fact your remark was more blatantly God using humans for His dirty work so they can take the blame and he remains blameless. And I hardly need emphasize the cult of ascribing anything good achieved to God, even if involved boxfuls of medical stuff, days of treatment and decades of research.If the outcome is good - Praise God.
And you are quite mistaken in ascribing resentment (a kneejerk reaction by believers) to what is actually a rational objection to what is an irrational proposition. Passing the buck and taking the credit, in fact.
Oh, and you may keep the free speculations about this postulated Soul, adorned with the label: 'psychology' to make it sound Impressive.
I think you assume too much. One can observe that in the Abrahamic religions, particularly the authoritarian precincts thereof, god generally gets credit and not blame, without having taken in personally.
The real issue raised by this is that god, who has ultimate power and therefore should be extra accountable, is entirely unaccountable via this mechanism. But to be indignant about that, you'd have to (1) believe in a god and (2) believe that this mechanism I speak of is how things actually work, rather than another human-invented, asserted, unsubstantiated doctrine.
In the real world of course every real being is accountable for their own actions, good and bad. Ultimately, "god gets all credit and no blame" is just another instance of special pleading.
Again, I ask, "WHICH definition are you referring to?" There are so many definitions of God - and they tend to be different based on different periods of time - IE: Old Testament God seemed more harsh and punishing, but the New Testament God was about forgiveness, love and truth.
As I said, Moses has not been established to be an HISTORICAL character. Yes he is a meme or archetype or legend and has influence as such. But I wasn't addressing that.
The influence Moses had is more important than what actually happened about 3,300 years ago. What is happening NOW is much more relevant. And the fact is, Moses is honored in the US Capitol building as a significant law-maker, because indeed, we do have laws against killing, stealing, lying under oath etc.
Quote:
I'm generally sympathetic to Jungian notions but they were, and remain, hypotheses. I have not seen them substantiated in some intersubjective way. I'm not sure they CAN be. However if there's a "collective unconscious" in play along with other mechanisms of societal morality negotiations, it presents no problem for me.
You're free to be apathetic about your own consciousness, most people are. However, you and each of us would be better off if we'd take a more active approach in exploring why we think, intend and do what we do.
"No, it was people doing that. People are the hands of God - for good or bad. "
It is a Rhetorical trick to pretend that not writing the exact words means that isn't what you said. In fact your remark was more blatantly God using humans for His dirty work so they can take the blame and he remains blameless. And I hardly need emphasize the cult of ascribing anything good achieved to God, even if involved boxfuls of medical stuff, days of treatment and decades of research.If the outcome is good - Praise God.
And you are quite mistaken in ascribing resentment (a kneejerk reaction by believers) to what is actually a rational objection to what is an irrational proposition. Passing the buck and taking the credit, in fact.
Oh, and you may keep the free speculations about this postulated Soul, adorned with the label: 'psychology' to make it sound Impressive.
Transponder, you've fallen for some particular illusion of God - which is so messed up, so on one hand, you do believe it completely represents God, and on the other hand, you throw it against the wall, to pick it up and keep throwing it.
We see God not as God is but how we are. That's why I asked about you feeling blamed and not receiving credit. There are so many definitions of God - in the bible, in the koran (100 in Islam, one being no definition can adequately define God) etc, and each person interprets everything, including God, uniquely. So, when you zoom in and focus on one aspect of God, I'm led to believe that it's because that's the paradigm through which you interpret.
I'm not trying to sound impressive, I'm simply saying my impressions of what you wrote. And I happen to love psych-ology and see it as inseparably connected with spirituality. I could be way off, and I trust you to convince me if I am, but isn't it better to be as straight forward as possible to get to the heart of matters?
I quite agree and in fact I don't really mind Your definition (or what I vaguely take it to be) which is why it isn't aimed at you personally, dear lady, much less any resentment as a proposition I don't even believe.
The atheist artillery is aimed at organized religion and the various literalist interpretations of the Bible. As i said elsewhere, those who take it as metaphor are effectively saying 'it isn''t (factually) true'
The Metaphorical or social-ethical value of the Bible is another debate altogether, and while significant doesn't have the current urgency that is needed to roll back the powerful right wing fundamentalist creationism that is a threat, and not just in the US.
The more Woo -ish interpretations of God from Alan Watts to Deepak Chophra are also significan (and different) debates. It is for me a low priority to convince you that you are wrong. I really don't even want to. I am willing to say why I don't buy it myself and leave it at that. I just pick up on various questionable assertions or propositions (like what God does that's bad, is men's fault, not God's).
The way it goes is like this: It is nit for atheists to define your God for you. You tell us what it is and we'll evaluate the validity of the claim. Where the impact on society is academic, the debate will be academic. Wjere it is real and practical, the debate (and activism) will be real and practical.
Yes, he has, as evident by him being honored in the US Capitol building as a significant law-maker.
It's true that there are debates as to the historical authenticity of biblical events associated with Moses, but whether he was a "character" in a parable or historically doesn't subtract from the very real influence the 10 commandments have had in societies.
I like this............
That's why I believe in an historical Paul Bunyan. He's got SIX statues which without a doubt proves him as a significant lumberjack.
Again, I ask, "WHICH definition are you referring to?" There are so many definitions of God - and they tend to be different based on different periods of time - IE: Old Testament God seemed more harsh and punishing, but the New Testament God was about forgiveness, love and truth.
I think I made it quite plain I'm referring to what I'm most familiar with: conventional Abrahamic god-concepts, particularly, evangelical / fundamentalist Christianity, since that's my religion of origin.
But I also for purposes of this conversation am punting back to a more generic / general Christian monotheism.
You are correct that Judeo-Christian god concepts evolved. You can even see a late polytheistic concept of Jehovah in the OT, transitioning over to monotheism. Then there's the law vs grace tension in the NT. The problem for fundamentalism is that it sees god as immutable and thus has to reconcile all these into a unified concept. It's a lot of work, and doesn't come off well.
The influence Moses had is more important than what actually happened about 3,300 years ago. What is happening NOW is much more relevant. And the fact is, Moses is honored in the US Capitol building as a significant law-maker, because indeed, we do have laws against killing, stealing, lying under oath etc.
Irrelevant and non-sequitur. If Moses wasn't an historical character then he invented nothing. He is a mythical person wrongly credited with things he never did. Indeed, Western legal systems owe very little to Moses, our legal system evolved from British common law, not Judaic law.
Finally -- the Mosaic law is itself derivative and not original.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperSoul
You're free to be apathetic about your own consciousness, most people are. However, you and each of us would be better off if we'd take a more active approach in exploring why we think, intend and do what we do.
I hardly think I'm apathetic about my own consciousness just because I find Jung interesting rather than something I credulously embrace just because I like it. Again ... you assume way too much.
That's why I believe in an historical Paul Bunyan. He's got SIX statues which without a doubt proves him as a significant lumberjack.
Why stop at statues, though appealing to the Numbers fallacy I'd say Buddha is proven Historical by a long way. But there are enough model FSM's to make a good case that he is a Historical character.
Cue "No, no no! (obligatory headslap-icon) this argument only applies to Biblical figures, not to characters in false religions". We skeptics and scoffers do require theist - thinking to set us straight on these matters.
Since I didn't write that - it came from you, I'm lead to believe that you have been nurturing resentment for feeling blamed for things but never credit for the good you do. I can relate - and I think we could agree that some religious ideas promote such punitive shame, which is actually damning (keeping us back from) exploring the kingdom of God within - aka our "psychology" - study of the soul.
AHHHHH That's my song for what it's like growing up in a high control group!!!! I was alive and could see other people doing normal things but it was always denied to me. I had to be "different". "isolated""no part of the world". Thanks.
Edit: and your right about always feeling like a person can't be good enough. no matter how much I did I was always weak and expected to do more.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
