Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

[Darth Rotor]

Christianity itself foists this myth. They have God do "rational" things, like saving believers, answering prayers and the like. Indeed, they even say "God is love", yet if God's love is totally irrational compared to human love, how can you even call it "love"? God, the way Christians describe Him, behaves rationally some times and irrationally at other times. His rational moments, they call "God's love". His irrational moments they write off as our own failure to understand His logic. They like to have it both ways.


One example I can give is that wealthy Christians often cite "the parable of the talents" as justification for their accumulation of wealth. They conveniently ignore all the other admonitions Jesus gave against accumulating wealth.

Riight, cherry picking for fun and profit. Perhaps both parables are to be balanced, and considered, so that the eye of the needle be read as "don't expect your riches, if you obsess over them, and if you worship them to get you into Heaven, as material won't get you there." There are reams and reams of commentary on discussion of the parables, much of it useful, some of it not.

Talk to me about Tithing, and how that relates to the Matthew you cite. Is it wrong that a man accumulate wealth, Tricky, if he tithe his portion, and thus benefit the entire congregation/Church/community? Is this somehow a contradiction of the admonition not to worship Mammon?

How does one resolve that conflict, if one is to cherry pick parables in order to suggest Acetism?

DR

 

[Huntster]

Riight, cherry picking for fun and profit. Perhaps both parables are to be balanced, and considered, so that the eye of the needle be read as "don't expect your riches, if you obsess over them, and if you worship them to get you into Heaven, as material won't get you there." There are reams and reams of commentary on discussion of the parables, much of it useful, some of it not.

Talk to me about Tithing, and how that relates to the Matthew you cite. Is it wrong that a man accumulate wealth, Tricky, if he tithe his portion, and thus benefit the entire congregation/Church/community? Is this somehow a contradiction of the admonition not to worship Mammon?

How does one resolve that conflict, if one is to cherry pick parables in order to suggest Acetism?

DR

A man of balance. You are a rare one on this forum, sir.

 

[Tricky]

If Roadtoad doesn't believe God exists, why would he write this?

He's explaining why the Christian concept of God came to be unacceptable to him and why he now declines to believe in it.

Frankly, I think they're good questions, and you're the one flicking your standard "how can we hate something that doesn't exist" drivel without thinking.

Because I have been reading Roadtoad's posts for a long time. I've watched him as he struggled with trying to keep his faith in spite of many good reasons to abandon it. He is not a person who has reached this conclusion mindlessly.

But if you don't believe me, why don't you ask him? See if he says, "I still believe in the Christian God and I blame Him." No, Huntster, Roadtoad and Slingblade have gone to great lengths to show why they cannot believe in a God that would do such things or allow His supporters to do them.

I have not had such trauma with my release of Christianity. I did not face evil and hypocritical actions by Christians, at least not to the extent that some have, so I don't have a strong negative reaction to the kind of preaching that we hear people like Kathy do here. But I can certainly understand why some people would.

That's not what his post says.

You haven't been reading carefully. Again.

 

[The Atheist]

One example I can give is that wealthy Christians often cite "the parable of the talents" as justification for their accumulation of wealth. They conveniently ignore all the other admonitions Jesus gave against accumulating wealth.

Whoa, mate!

Wealthy christians? Just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean they're "greedy and selfish", does it? Not always at least?

...Of course, there are greedy and selfish atheists just as there are greedy and selfish Christians. At least, though, the atheists don't quote some Bible verse and claim that their greedy selfishness is "doing God's will".

You seem to be on two different subjects.

 

[The Atheist]

<<just taking the piss, here>>

Bumper sticker:

Ex-christian/ex-smoker, who can tell?

 

[Tricky]

Riight, cherry picking for fun and profit. Perhaps both parables are to be balanced, and considered, so that the eye of the needle be read as "don't expect your riches, if you obsess over them, and if you worship them to get you into Heaven, as material won't get you there." There are reams and reams of commentary on discussion of the parables, much of it useful, some of it not.

LOL. Come off it, Darth. You asked for an example, I gave you one. Surely you don't expect me to resolve all the conflicting stories in the bible. All I am saying is that the depiction of God and Jesus are so inconsistant in the Bible that they do not fit the definition of "rational". Yet many, probably most Christians will argue that belief in God is rational.

Talk to me about Tithing, and how that relates to the Matthew you cite. Is it wrong that a man accumulate wealth, Tricky, if he tithe his portion, and thus benefit the entire congregation/Church/community? Is this somehow a contradiction of the admonition not to worship Mammon?

If that were the way the parable were uniformly used, it might make some sense, but in my experience, it is not. Should a wealthy man have personal riches greater than those of the rest of the congregation/Church/community? If so, then he's not exactly benefitting them is he? At least, he's not as benefitting them as much as he's benefitting himself.

Question for discussion: Was Jesus a socialist?

How does one resolve that conflict, if one is to cherry pick parables in order to suggest Acetism?

Since I decline to print the whole Bible right here, I cannot see any way not to "cherry-pick" selected verses.

Why don't you try to find verses that contradict what I have said? Without "cherry-picking".

 

[The Atheist]

Amazing to see how much people know about something they have never known in person like a so-called god, it is just like it comes right out of their head, hey, it does.

Hell, I know dozens of people who do know god, apparently. I even know a guy who goes out in his paddock and talks to Jesus daily. Most christians are christian because they know god, rather than the opposite.

Let's face it, there is still more anecdotal evidence of god than not, no matter what some philosophical types will try to claim. We can de-bunk as much of the bible as we like it doesn't lessen god/s' appeal. Even taking into account such heathen countries as NZ, christians outnumber atheists by an enormous margin and most of them claim to "know" god. In a court of law, right now, if atheists had put god on trial, we'd be getting our arses kicked. Our evidence consists of what god would have done, but hasn't against over a billion eye-witness accounts of god and innumerable miracles done in his name.

 

[The Atheist]

Question for discussion: Was Jesus a socialist?

Yeah, I think it's pretty obvious that he was. I think he and Marx could have written a better plan for it, but Jesus and Groucho would have ben more appropriate.

 

[Paulhoff]

Our evidence consists of what god would have done, but hasn't against over a billion eye-witness accounts of god and innumerable miracles done in his name.

If I read this right, what eye-witness miracles done in his name? The killing of the American Indians, the slavery of Africans, the holocaust of the Jews and others in WWII?

Paul



Having no god explains the world so much better.

 

[The Atheist]

If I read this right, what eye-witness miracles done in his name? The killing of the American Indians, the slavery of Africans, the holocaust of the Jews and others in WWII?

I don't know how many eye-witness accounts there are of miracles, the eye-witness I meant are acounts of god/s and the interaction therewith. Miracles, as far as I've ever seen them claimed, are usually medical ones, although I think Jeanne d'Arc has had a different type of miracle claimed in her name (quite incorrectly, if my reading of the facts are right).

 

[Darth Rotor]

LOL. Come off it, Darth. You asked for an example, I gave you one. Surely you don't expect me to resolve all the conflicting stories in the bible.

No, I won't, can't, and shouldn't.

Question for discussion: Was Jesus a socialist?

Good question! Distributism is of growing interest among some Catholic thinkers on a more just, more balanced, social contract. One could argue that the Pilgrims used the OT and NT to establish a commune for their first year or two, so a certain flavor of socialism is embedded in the Scripture from a practical standpoint, but since they expanded to a more capital/property style of social contract, we may have a hard time knowing if it would have succeeded as a Christian Commune. The Amish may be a slightly better model, however, I am not expert enough on their norms to comment further.

Since Socialists, by doctrine, are Communists in transition, Jesus cannot strictly speaking have been a Socialist, since a Socialist/Communist is by doctrine an Atheist: there is no God, nor any god, as it were. (I understand that some current forms of socialism do not consider themselves in transition, of course. )

Since I decline to print the whole Bible right here, I cannot see any way not to "cherry-pick" selected verses.

True enough.

Why don't you try to find verses that contradict what I have said? Without "cherry-picking".

Because you brought it up. You might not have noticed, but I rarely quote Scripture on the internet, and usually when I do it is in a literary style, as I would quote Chesterton, Tolkein, or Shakespeare.

I have learned over the years that quoting Scripture out of context is one of the best paths to misunderstanding . . . the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

DR

 

[Paulhoff]

Miracles, as far as I've ever seen them claimed, are usually medical ones...

The re-growing of limbs, the cancer my wife had a few years back etc. Why it is only the good things, after all didn't this so-called god also let people get sick to begin with?

Paul

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
If Roadtoad doesn't believe God exists, why would he write this?

He's explaining why the Christian concept of God came to be unacceptable to him and why he now declines to believe in it.

And that explanation is that other people screwed him around. Sorry, I still don't get it. If John Q. Jerk screws me around, why blame God for it?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Frankly, I think they're good questions, and you're the one flicking your standard "how can we hate something that doesn't exist" drivel without thinking.

Because I have been reading Roadtoad's posts for a long time. I've watched him as he struggled with trying to keep his faith in spite of many good reasons to abandon it. He is not a person who has reached this conclusion mindlessly.

Is he reaching this conclusion, or are others reaching it for him?

But if you don't believe me, why don't you ask him? See if he says, "I still believe in the Christian God and I blame Him." No, Huntster, Roadtoad and Slingblade have gone to great lengths to show why they cannot believe in a God that would do such things or allow His supporters to do them.

Sorry, that doesn't work. We all have free will to do good or evil, whether Christian or not. Blaming God for that is an easy way to nowhere. It won't solve anything. It's like a child laying kicking and screaming on the floor.

Originally Posted by Huntster
That's not what his post says.

You haven't been reading carefully. Again.

It's damned clear to me:

....Their "god" was hurting me, and I refused to accept it anymore. And at this stage of my life, I question whether He even exists....

 

[Huntster]

....Question for discussion: Was Jesus a socialist?.

Socialist:

–noun
1. an advocate or supporter of socialism.
2. (initial capital letter) a member of the U.S. Socialist party.

Socialism:

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

No, I don't believe Jesus was a socialist.

He certainly advocated compassion, fairness, and altruism from one's free will, but any control of the means of production as social law was never mentioned or implied. In fact, He illustrated distrust and venom toward the government of the day, and was killed by an alliance of religious and secular government.

 

[The Atheist]

The re-growing of limbs, the cancer my wife had a few years back etc. Why it is only the good things, after all didn't this so-called god also let people get sick to begin with?

Paul

Hell, I'm sure there are plenty of bad things attributed to him/her, too.

I haven't read an insurance policy recently, but they certainly all used to contain the phrase "act of god" when it came to lightning strikes, etc.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm more looking at it from the socialist utopia "from each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needs" kind of socialism. I think the big J would have been pretty keen on that approach. (Given that we're attributing human frailties to a god-thing.)

 

[The Atheist]

. . . the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.

DR

Shouldn't that be "less than the sum of the parts"?

Taken in chapters/verses/quotes, the bible can seem to make a lot of sense. Viewed objectively, as a whole and complete work, it's rubbish of the lowest order.

 

[Tricky]

And that explanation is that other people screwed him around. Sorry, I still don't get it. If John Q. Jerk screws me around, why blame God for it?

He wasn't blaming God. However if John Q. Jerk screws me around and claims that God told him to, one might be inclined to respond, "Your God is a jerk". It doesn't mean that they believe in God, but just that whatever it was that inspired JQJ to behave thus is futzed up.

Is he reaching this conclusion, or are others reaching it for him?

I'm guessing it's him reaching the conclusion, based on my observation of his ability to think for himself.

Sorry, that doesn't work. We all have free will to do good or evil, whether Christian or not. Blaming God for that is an easy way to nowhere. It won't solve anything. It's like a child laying kicking and screaming on the floor.

Except that they're not blaming God. However, they are correct to blame Christians if those Christians do evil things, wouldn't you say? And if those Christians have a concept of God that allows them to do evil things, it is equally correct to point out that such a concept of God is screwed up. But (and try to see if you can follow it this time) blaming bad things on someone's concept of God (and behaviors which result from that concept) is not the same as as blaming that God. They are not saying that the person's concept of God is an accurate representation of reality.

I do not know if a loving God exists. I do know that if the Christian concept of God exists, it does not fit any definition of "loving" that I could accept. I choose not to believe in that concept.

It's damned clear to me:

So you didn't see the quotes around "god"? Do you know what that means? It means "so-called". For example, a 60's Republican might say sarcastically, "You can stick your 'Great Society' where the sun don't shine." It means that they don't belive that the 'Great Society' as described by the Democrats was a valid concept.

It is sad that you have to have such simple things spelled out to you.

 

[Huntster]

I'm more looking at it from the socialist utopia "from each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needs" kind of socialism. I think the big J would have been pretty keen on that approach. (Given that we're attributing human frailties to a god-thing.)

I agree completely with that approach, however, I believe the key is from the soul, not from law.

Socialism is real close to central control of production and distribution. It must be from the soul (just like sin and goodness), or it's government, not free will.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
And that explanation is that other people screwed him around. Sorry, I still don't get it. If John Q. Jerk screws me around, why blame God for it?

He wasn't blaming God. However if John Q. Jerk screws me around and claims that God told him to, one might be inclined to respond, "Your God is a jerk".

And that would be quite stupid, wouldn't it?

Do you think we should wage war on Allah because of what the 9/11 conspirators did in New York?

It doesn't mean that they believe in God, but just that whatever it was that inspired JQJ to behave thus is futzed up.

It wasn't God who inspired JQJ to so behave. It was sin. You know; the stuff God doesn't like?

Originally Posted by Huntster
Sorry, that doesn't work. We all have free will to do good or evil, whether Christian or not. Blaming God for that is an easy way to nowhere. It won't solve anything. It's like a child laying kicking and screaming on the floor.

Except that they're not blaming God. However, they are correct to blame Christians if those Christians do evil things, wouldn't you say?

Yes, I would.

And if those Christians have a concept of God that allows them to do evil things, it is equally correct to point out that such a concept of God is screwed up.

Yeah, but that won't do much, will it? Take atheists, for example. I think they have a screwed up concept of God, and they don't seem to agree, do they? But as long as they don't break the law, what do you do? Nothing. If they break the law, you kick their ass, religious or not.

But (and try to see if you can follow it this time) blaming bad things on someone's concept of God (and behaviors which result from that concept) is not the same as as blaming that God.

And "blaming bad things on someone's concept of God" is even more foolish than blaming it on God Himself.

Tricky's dad didn't whup his mom because of his concept of God. Even if he tried to justify it with God, that isn't why the evil was committed.

I do not know if a loving God exists. I do know that if the Christian concept of God exists, it does not fit any definition of "loving" that I could accept. I choose not to believe in that concept.

The greatest gift my Dad ever gave me was my freedom. And it wasn't easy. I almost screwed it up. That's what free will is all about.

And Daddy loved me. Had faith, too.

It is sad that you have to have such simple things spelled out to you.

What I'm reading from you is far from simple.