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.
Yes. It is a bit of a tightrope. In some ways, cherry -picking the Bible (and even Dogma, see ET vs UR) is a cop -out and really the "Ghost Bible" in an almost blasphemous form. "God's word doesn't suit us, we had better rewrite it for him". it obviously has advantages because it means you can hang onto some form of Bible -based belief rather than have to reject it altogether.
That is why I have a grudging respect for the stubborn literalist who will not compromise on what the Bible says, though I can get on better with those who will regard the Bible as containing large chunks that are open to negotiation.
I just think myself lucky that I don't have that problem.
Thank you. I find it constantly astonishing (even though I have known about the "Ghost Bible" for decade) that the dogma that Faith will guarantee you heaven no matter how you act seems to be adhered to, even though it is there in print that Paul says that misbehaving will bar you.
It's clear that he is talking to his churches and is debunking his own original thesis (Romans) that faith in Jesus is all you need for salvation and he assumes that such a faith is going to turn everyone into plaster saints. He then finds out that this in not the case and his Faithful think they can do whatever they like, since they are irrevocably Saved anyway. After handwringing a bit he revises his thesis so that bad behaviour can lose you salvation (Corinthians) so Works are essential, not because they can get you salvation - that is obtainable only by Faith (1) but because sinning can lose you the salvation even if you still have faith.
(1) even though apparently it is not guaranteed, the idea of you having faith and God NOT giving you salvation is something that I doubt even the most hardened Religioous dogmatist would dare say.
I rarely take atheists to task. Their minds are rarely corrupted with misinterpretations of Scripture. It is believers like myself who need to constantly worry that our interpretation will be divisive rather than inclusive.
Anyone can claim to have faith. But without a change for the better in the way we treat others, that claim means nothing. At the same time the only ones Jesus spoke harshly to were the über religious of His day who were divisive and superior toward others. Being that kind of believer is my ultimate nightmare.
Besides, I cannot know for sure if God may place you as my neighbor in Heaven! I don't want to start that relationship on the wrong footing. Eternity is a long, long time!
Well, I do not think I have enough time left in this life to read all the books I want to read, but I would rather spend time reading than pretty much anything else.
Yes, atheism's definitely easier, I think. You can just be a spectator/commentator, a role which serves us theists in some ways as well. I'm a little envious of youse guys sometimes. But at this stage of the game, having gone through all the different phases, I'm glad to be where I am spiritually.
It's not surprising that you would have a grudging respect for the fundamentalists. They are as sure that ABC is the truth as you are sure that ABC is not the truth. It's straightforward and sure thinking from both sides.
That is not why I have the grudging respect. It is for the integrity, I suppose you could call it, and the sheer guts not to compromise as inch. I can understand that you would field that as a 'Fundy on both sides' argument as part of the "Duck -hunt" but it is wrongheaded thinking, because you have a conclusion and are just looking to something to support it, and never mind asking atheists whether they got it right.
Maybe I do the same thing, in hypothesizing that irreligious theists and sortagod agnostics (who should all be blood brothers with atheists in their campaign against organized religion) are surprisingly often viciously hostile to atheists. I hypothesize that it is because they have nothing to base their faith on, other than the ever popular but ever invalid First cause argument, so they only have one flimsy argument to defend, so they defend it like madmen and with everything they have, which isn't much, so abuse, accusations and personalities appear at the start of the argument, rather than at the end
As I say, that is my hypothesis, and I could be wrong. I'd ask the sortagod -"agnostics", but, I'd never get an honest answer, and there's no use asking a reasonable one like Troutdude (1), as he probably doesn't comprehend the Fundamentalist -agnostic any more than I do.
P.s I'd like to post and discuss (possibly) about the 'atheism being easier' suggestion, but I don't think it is on topic.
(1) it's a damn' shame that he is the only one I can think of, offhand. The others all seem to be atheist -bashers, just like the Christian Fundies.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-17-2016 at 06:26 AM..
You've got it totally backward, ghostee, but then isn't that typical!
It not the Christian left that is in decline, it is the Christian RIGHT---hardcore conservative fundamentalism--that is in SHARP decline because of their totally medieval, if not Stone Age beliefs that homosexuals should be stoned, that dried up old codgers steeped in the Old Testament Leviticus-ism should be the ones dictating to women what rights they have over their own bodies, and that government should be run by Christian fundamentalism--a sort of Christian TALIBAN!
You cannot stop this decline, ghostee no matter how much you lust after doing it. The snowball is already an avalanche ready to crush the tiny shack of Christian conservatism at the bottom of the hill, and I am watching and anticipating with glee when this happens.
Yes, even if the Nones become 60% and half of those are atheist, the religious will still have huge amounts of money, political clout and influence. But a nonreligious percentage majority will be a massive turning pnt where irreligion will be given.....
........
....Respect.
It will be Seen for the first time, taken seriously and admitted it is Here and to stay. Which didn't happen with being a bigger group that either Catholic or protestant separately. That didn't even register with me.
But religion, a sorta god belief, a reverence for Something..the search for the spiritual. that may continue. Religion, ceasing to be a problem can be valued for its positive aspects. Military re-enactors are a minority without power or influence (so far as I know). But we can support and appreciate the contribution they make to our life.
That is not why I have the grudging respect. It is for the integrity, I suppose you could call it, and the sheer guts not to compromise as inch. I can understand that you would field that as a 'Fundy on both sides' argument as part of the "Duck -hunt" but it is wrongheaded thinking, because you have a conclusion and are just looking to something to support it, and never mind asking atheists whether they got it right.
Maybe I do the same thing, in hypothesizing that irreligious theists and sortagod agnostics (who should all be blood brothers with atheists in their campaign against organized religion) are surprisingly often viciously hostile to atheists. I hypothesize that it is because they have nothing to base their faith on, other than the ever popular but ever invalid First cause argument, so they only have one flimsy argument to defend, so they defend it like madmen and with everything they have, which isn't much, so abuse, accusations and personalities appear at the start of the argument, rather than at the end
As I say, that is my hypothesis, and I could be wrong. I'd ask the sortagod -"agnostics", but, I'd never get an honest answer, and there's no use asking a reasonable one like Troutdude (1), as he probably doesn't comprehend the Fundamentalist -agnostic any more than I do.
P.s I'd like to post and discuss (possibly) about the 'atheism being easier' suggestion, but I don't think it is on topic.
(1) it's a damn' shame that he is the only one I can think of, offhand. The others all seem to be atheist -bashers, just like the Christian Fundies.
I have no idea what you mean by Duck-hunt.
I think you're reading something into what I said that isn't there. I honestly did not have a conclusion and was looking for something to support it, and I'm not really clear as to why you think so.
I just said what my pov was off the top of my head. It was a relatively simple, straightforward statement. Again, don't seek some deeper double message because it ain't in there. I have no problem with atheists. Most of my family are, as well as a number of friends. And hey, maybe you DO have it right. I've said that more than once on this board.
Sorry if I caused you to be peeved you in some way. It wasn't intentional.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 09-17-2016 at 08:52 PM..
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.
Yes, atheism's definitely easier, I think. You can just be a spectator/commentator, a role which serves us theists in some ways as well. I'm a little envious of youse guys sometimes. But at this stage of the game, having gone through all the different phases, I'm glad to be where I am spiritually.
