General musing about Christianity and idolatry

[popsthebuilder]

You are the only one pretending anything here.  You claim mountains of evidence; but you fail to show any at all.  You had a personal catharsis of some sort and you want to make it universal--that's all this is.  Your ego is so huge that you figure if it happens to you, it must be universal and planned.  Once again, a theist puts the cart before the horse.  I don't make any claims at all.  Then you show up and tell me to prove that god does not exist.  That is like asking me to provide proof that the Tooth Fairy does not exist.  What should happen, is you provide me with evidence that your god exists.  If you can do that, then I'll accept that your god exists.  Until then, you are just blowing smoke and calling it clear thinking.  You only have belief; you have no evidence.  Why keep pretending that you do?   I don't care if a billion people believe the world to be flat; and I don't care about their sincerity in that belief; the world is still not flat.  And you are simply just another pretender claiming that your god is the Truth!  That is called self deception, my friend.

I'm not pretending anything whatsoever.

Call it what you want




peace

[Mike Cl]

I'm not pretending anything whatsoever.

Call it what you want




peace

I am calling it like it is.  You are calling it as you want. 

[popsthebuilder]

I am calling it like it is.  You are calling it as you want.

How can you justifiably claim that I am making something up as if you are me or you were even there?

[Mike Cl]

How can you justifiably claim that I am making something up as if you are me or you were even there?

Why?  Simple.  You have not provided any sort of evidence.  Your psychotic moment does not stand in for evidence.

[widdershins]

Speaking to the conversation between pops and mike, there is no "universal truth".  The Bible gives conflicting stories and demands conflicting things of us to the point where Christians have to have a slew of answers for why we ignore certain parts of it.  A few examples, the Bible tells you to kill witches, but Christians don't do that.  The Bible tells you not to eat pork, but most Christians don't obey that, even though Jesus said he had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.  The Bible tells you how to treat your slaves, but most Christians find slavery appalling.  Man and women were created in God's image in book one, chapter one, but in book one, chapter two only man was "created", woman was made from a piece of man.  And man was made on day one and day six of creation.

The point is the Bible must be "interpreted".  This is accepted among all Christian denominations I am aware of.  You can't get any "universal truth" from an interpreted work, especially one where any two people on the planet can't agree 100% on the interpretation.  God is pro-life?  Except when he isn't.  He has ordered the deaths of specifically babies.  And how many unborn children were killed in the flood?  Does the Bible anywhere say you aren't supposed to kill babies?  Yes, it says "Thou shalt not kill", but that is ONE LINE buried in at least dozens where it tells you to kill.  Kill witches, kill gay people, kill adulterous wives, kill unruly children, kill your enemy, kill false prophets, an eye for an eye...  Any "universal truth" you get from that is wholly in your head.

[Mike Cl]

Speaking to the conversation between pops and mike, there is no "universal truth".  The Bible gives conflicting stories and demands conflicting things of us to the point where Christians have to have a slew of answers for why we ignore certain parts of it.  A few examples, the Bible tells you to kill witches, but Christians don't do that.  The Bible tells you not to eat pork, but most Christians don't obey that, even though Jesus said he had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.  The Bible tells you how to treat your slaves, but most Christians find slavery appalling.  Man and women were created in God's image in book one, chapter one, but in book one, chapter two only man was "created", woman was made from a piece of man.  And man was made on day one and day six of creation.

The point is the Bible must be "interpreted".  This is accepted among all Christian denominations I am aware of.  You can't get any "universal truth" from an interpreted work, especially one where any two people on the planet can't agree 100% on the interpretation.  God is pro-life?  Except when he isn't.  He has ordered the deaths of specifically babies.  And how many unborn children were killed in the flood?  Does the Bible anywhere say you aren't supposed to kill babies?  Yes, it says "Thou shalt not kill", but that is ONE LINE buried in at least dozens where it tells you to kill.  Kill witches, kill gay people, kill adulterous wives, kill unruly children, kill your enemy, kill false prophets, an eye for an eye...  Any "universal truth" you get from that is wholly in your head.

!!

[popsthebuilder]

Why?  Simple.  You have not provided any sort of evidence.  Your psychotic moment does not stand in for evidence.

I have a dated invoice book that I found when I got home that day. I had intended to write what had happened, but was determined to write whatever came out. What came out was similar to a moral code or ethics guidance. It reminds me of the writings I read today. Thing is I had NEVER read or really even heard the bible recited or any other religious texts for that matter. Unlike many here, I didn't delve into things I didn't think were true. I didn't believe in anything spiritual.

That's as close to evidence of the event or happening that I have. That and my honest testimony.

My word must hold some weight.

Why would I lie. I'm not selling anything.

peace

[Mike Cl]

I have a dated invoice book that I found when I got home that day. I had intended to write what had happened, but was determined to write whatever came out. What came out was similar to a moral code or ethics guidance. It reminds me of the writings I read today. Thing is I had NEVER read or really even heard the bible recited or any other religious texts for that matter. Unlike many here, I didn't delve into things I didn't think were true. I didn't believe in anything spiritual.

That's as close to evidence of the event or happening that I have. That and my honest testimony.

My word must hold some weight.

Why would I lie. I'm not selling anything.

peace

I don't know why you would lie.  But, Pops, being mistaken is not telling a lie.  Self deception can be powerful and can lead to mistaken thoughts and ideas.  I have no doubt you are sincere in your beliefs.  But, not to be harsh, Hitler was sincere in his as well.  Look, Pops, I am convinced that if you were a neighbor or coworker or friend you would be a joy to be around.  That does not mean I have to think your beliefs are real.  They may be sincere, but false.  Your beliefs are false; and I say that because you don't have any evidence to show me that I am wrong.  That doesn't make you bad or evil, just wrong.   

[Hydra009]

I'm not sure what you're getting at. If not was your own book you used to wipe your butt then that would be your choice. I personally would find some other thing to use other than my own book, regardless of what that book was about.

He's talking about treating an object as if were sacrosanct.  If I were freezing in the wilderness, I would burn Winds of Winter.  How about you?

[Baruch]

If only what people agree on is right ... that is majoritarianism with a big dash of group think.  I would rather be right, and alone, that in a huge crowd agreeing on something ... that is wrong.  Objectivity isn't what you portray.

[popsthebuilder]

I don't know why you would lie.  But, Pops, being mistaken is not telling a lie.  Self deception can be powerful and can lead to mistaken thoughts and ideas.  I have no doubt you are sincere in your beliefs.  But, not to be harsh, Hitler was sincere in his as well.  Look, Pops, I am convinced that if you were a neighbor or coworker or friend you would be a joy to be around.  That does not mean I have to think your beliefs are real.  They may be sincere, but false.  Your beliefs are false; and I say that because you don't have any evidence to show me that I am wrong.  That doesn't make you bad or evil, just wrong.

No sir, it is you that are wrong. What we have here is an issue with discernment. It is true that not all things should be taken without some form of evidence, most even. But what isn't true is that anything whatsoever should be thrown out as if nonsense or crazed ramblings just because there is no supporting evidence to the liking of those being critical.  What scientific advancement would we witness is all things were rigid in there ideology or theories? No hypotheses would ever even be made. No advancement would be had if we all limited evidence to the realm of what is already known. I am not wrong because you fail to believe me. Your insinuating a misrepresentation of the facts of my personal experience, or the soundness of my mind at the time of those experiences is simply confirmation bias.

I wouldn't expect you to believe what I say. But if you think I am sincere then you mist think I'm nuts. Both are quite insulting but I guess nuts is better than deceitful.

Back to that self deception thing;

I wallowed in the very pit of self deception for years. I can spot it easily at nearly every interval now, and in fact, consciously do so. This isn't to say that I always act against that self deception, but it is plain as day at all times.

Tell me; what would you assume the motive would be for an atheist (one doing markedly better prior to said experience) to deceive himself into thinking that he experienced GOD in some way? And what benefit would it be for him to come out about it years later among atheists to ridicule and all sorts of negativity as if they were some inferior breed or race?

Hitler indeed...speaking of; I know it must be fun to reference Hitler when speaking of the faithful, but he was an extreme activist for the genocide of a whole people.

I am a pacifist for the peaceable advancement of all people and life as a whole.

peace

[popsthebuilder]

He's talking about treating an object as if were sacrosanct.  If I were freezing in the wilderness, I would burn Winds of Winter.  How about you?

I don't know what that book is, but let's get to it; if I were in solitude in deathly freezing conditions with only a bible or Qur'an or some such book, I would indeed burn it to stay alive if I felt I needed to live.

peace

[Baruch]

I don't know what that book is, but let's get to it; if I were in solitude in deathly freezing conditions with only a bible or Qur'an or some such book, I would indeed burn it to stay alive if I felt I needed to live.

peace

One of the Zen masters in China, did that to a Buddha statue ;-)

[Baruch]

People stuck in their own POV, always think they are being objective .. if they praise objectivity.  Those who praise subjectivity, also put themselves in the best light, by thinking they are being subjective.  These are both false categories.

[popsthebuilder]

Speaking to the conversation between pops and mike, there is no "universal truth".  The Bible gives conflicting stories and demands conflicting things of us to the point where Christians have to have a slew of answers for why we ignore certain parts of it.  A few examples, the Bible tells you to kill witches, but Christians don't do that.  The Bible tells you not to eat pork, but most Christians don't obey that, even though Jesus said he had not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill it.  The Bible tells you how to treat your slaves, but most Christians find slavery appalling.  Man and women were created in God's image in book one, chapter one, but in book one, chapter two only man was "created", woman was made from a piece of man.  And man was made on day one and day six of creation.

The point is the Bible must be "interpreted".  This is accepted among all Christian denominations I am aware of.  You can't get any "universal truth" from an interpreted work, especially one where any two people on the planet can't agree 100% on the interpretation.  God is pro-life?  Except when he isn't.  He has ordered the deaths of specifically babies.  And how many unborn children were killed in the flood?  Does the Bible anywhere say you aren't supposed to kill babies?  Yes, it says "Thou shalt not kill", but that is ONE LINE buried in at least dozens where it tells you to kill.  Kill witches, kill gay people, kill adulterous wives, kill unruly children, kill your enemy, kill false prophets, an eye for an eye...  Any "universal truth" you get from that is wholly in your head.

The law wasn't done away with. It is in the heart through the conscience of those who wish to reciprocate the lovingkindness and giving mercy of GOD towards creation.

Parts of the ot are obviously not interpreted correctly possibly as far back as oral tradition. The Jew was chastised within the ot and by the Christ. The nt doest say to kill anyone.

peace