Author Topic: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity  (Read 2450 times)

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2020, 10:02:14 AM »
If you don't support violence...

Excessive physical violence is for those with no imagination. For children who think we live forever. I much prefer to take you down before you even know I am your enemy. I expect something similar from my enlightened government. Instead we have glorious wars like Viet Nam and Iraq as we sit and just watch the CCP and Putin play us for fools in our own facebook backyard. Squeezing the CCP is the single concept that the Rump in office (or should I say Bannon) gets right. It is imperative that we get our manufacturing base back no matter how much it hurts in the short term. Our corporate boards have sold us out. Kim, Putin, CCP and the Ayatollah all need to feel the economic wrath of united democracies until they crumble and are replaced with reasonable systems. Will they change on their own without our help? It rarely happens but as they weaken there is an opportunity. Just like when the USSR crumbled. Unfortunately we didn't work together with the new glasnost Russia and they regressed.

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2020, 01:23:12 PM »
Yes, Nixon said we shouldn't demonize Russia if they reformed.  They went thru collapse hell, reformed, but we supported Europe's ambition to castrate Russia all the way thru 2017, under three Presidents, with multiple color-revolutions.  This was bipartisan.  As was the "Turn To China" policy going on since Nixon was in office.  Russia reasonably felt let down, and faced with a militant enemy, while its rival grew and grew.  In Russian style they reverted to authoritarianism.
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Paolo

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2020, 06:44:48 PM »
The fact that a President was told by the creator of the universe to attack Iraq is horseshit.

That was the best part.
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2020, 07:17:25 PM »
That was the best part.

George W is now Michelle's best friend ;-)
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Paolo

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2020, 07:39:05 PM »
George W is now Michelle's best friend ;-)

I always have trouble understanding your posts. Can I say that? Sure I don't want to hurt your feelings.
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2020, 08:00:06 PM »
I always have trouble understanding your posts. Can I say that? Sure I don't want to hurt your feelings.
Paolo--not a problem.  At one time Baruch was a fount of interesting and salient facts and ideas.  Now, he makes no sense to anybody, not even himself.  He simply likes to ramble and babble on......and on......and on.  The best thing to do now is just skip his posts.  Like Trump--apparently his idol--he likes to just say whatever he wants with no care of the truth or of facts. 
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent,
Is he able but not willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able or willing?
Then why call him god?

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2020, 09:57:08 PM »
I always have trouble understanding your posts. Can I say that? Sure I don't want to hurt your feelings.

There are styles in forums.  Some are fully indented.  You have all the previous entries layed down vertically but with structure.  So my post was against the one just prior, which referenced yet another prior post.  One could, and I sometimes, arrange things to be fully indented like footnotes, but not always.  Specifically ...
you quoted the OP (entry 0) in your entry 17.  My entry quoted (what I don’t always do) your entry, as part of my entry 18).  Though often I am commenting on the post just above, without directly quoting it.  The sum of all the entries in a string is like an inverted tree.

MikeCL has fits about my content, not the mechanics of how the entries work together.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2020, 10:02:01 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Paolo

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2020, 11:23:52 PM »
There are styles in forums.  Some are fully indented.  You have all the previous entries layed down vertically but with structure.  So my post was against the one just prior, which referenced yet another prior post.  One could, and I sometimes, arrange things to be fully indented like footnotes, but not always.  Specifically ...
you quoted the OP (entry 0) in your entry 17.  My entry quoted (what I don’t always do) your entry, as part of my entry 18).  Though often I am commenting on the post just above, without directly quoting it.  The sum of all the entries in a string is like an inverted tree.

MikeCL has fits about my content, not the mechanics of how the entries work together.

That was a very convoluted way of saying how the structure of the forum works. You could have said it with far less words and much more simply. I even made a fool of myself and read the post 3 times to understand it. Good for you that I have the time. And for now, I will say that I also have issues with your content, not just MikeCL, and I have absolutely no issues with ''how the entries work together''.

Still, kudos for the imaginative writing. You remind me of another user on another atheistic blog, curiously named ''Leprechaun''. ;)
« Last Edit: July 08, 2020, 12:44:33 AM by Paolo »
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Online Hydra009

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2020, 11:50:49 PM »
That was a very convoluted way of saying how the stucture of the forum works. You could have said it with far less words and much more simply.
Why use few word when

Offline Sal1981

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2020, 01:57:54 AM »
Religious people, don't consider religion to be indoctrination. They consider secularism etc to be indoctrination.  Particularly if it has a political angle to it.
Sometimes I forget that you're a god-botherer, but then I remember. religion can only  exist with the tool of indoctrination. Secularism is merely the act of making distinctions between the religious and other political/ideological stances on things, separating religious convictions from political ones.

That the god-botherers are unable to see this distinction says a lot, methinks. And that god-botherers have a way to see anything that challenges their views in the same light they see their own convictions (i.e. as faiths), unable to entertain the world without their religious lense. It is a failing of intelligence, a result of indoctrination.

I don't condemn human sacrifice (in the modern sense).  I am not an Aztec.  But I do approve of Americans fighting for their country, if necessary, and that entails injury and death (as well as injury and death of their opponents).  For many, this is a religious act, because they happen to be religious.  For Soviets in WW II or Afghanistan, they were dying for Socialism (an ideology not a theology).  Human sacrifice either way.  The Afghans certainly were dying for their religion, not for secularism.  A nationalist speech, not a religious speech, because General Patton was a pretty profane guy.
This isn't secularism. Someone might subscribe to a political ideology with the same fervor a theist does to his faith. Secularism is simply the stance of separation of the two. But I guess you're using the colloquial sense of secularism as an opponent to religious convictions, which is why a god-botherer is unable to distinguish their own faith in terms that are strictly areligious. It's like being convinced  there only exists 2 dimensions and when someone argues for a 3 dimensional world, they are unable to imagine objects in that frame, because they are tidal-locked in 2 dimensional thinking.

Atheism, by induction, in many ways frees people of the theistic thinking model (or dimension if you will) of religious convictions. It's taking a step back and seeing every religious conviction, each different from one another, to a new perspective; a perspective free of the opaque walls made into transparent glass, where the same errors in their thinking been made apparent: faith is unworkable.

The same failing exists in political ideologies, except there's a substantial qualitative difference between religion and politics, the former is based on faith, the latter on method.

Slavery isn't condemned in the NT, or the invasion of reptilian shape shifters either ;-)  What was recommended 2000 years ago, is for Jewish communities to purchase Jewish slaves, and manumit them.  The god-fearers in Jewish synagogues were Gentile former slaves who had been manumitted by their Jewish masters.
There is very little wiggle-room for growth when you don't improve upon, or better yet, correct mistakes in a book - any book - be it political or religious. Our zeitgeists sensibilities towards slavery is an example of that.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2020, 11:40:03 AM »
That was a very convoluted way of saying how the structure of the forum works. You could have said it with far less words and much more simply. I even made a fool of myself and read the post 3 times to understand it. Good for you that I have the time. And for now, I will say that I also have issues with your content, not just MikeCL, and I have absolutely no issues with ''how the entries work together''.

Still, kudos for the imaginative writing. You remind me of another user on another atheistic blog, curiously named ''Leprechaun''. ;)

I don't think you did anything wrong, or have any reason to be embarrassed.  I try to explain, but I wasn't talking down to.  If you object to my content, well that is open to anyone.  In the Religion section I mostly try to clarify, not argue.  I am retired, so yes, I have the time.  Not as a comparison, as I don't visit other forums these days, but Vulcan who rarely posts here but more often at "atheistforums.org" (totally unrelated to this forum) is a really smart fellow.  Just saying.
« Last Edit: July 08, 2020, 11:45:04 AM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2020, 11:51:53 AM »
Sometimes I forget that you're a god-botherer, but then I remember. religion can only  exist with the tool of indoctrination. Secularism is merely the act of making distinctions between the religious and other political/ideological stances on things, separating religious convictions from political ones.

That the god-botherers are unable to see this distinction says a lot, methinks. And that god-botherers have a way to see anything that challenges their views in the same light they see their own convictions (i.e. as faiths), unable to entertain the world without their religious lense. It is a failing of intelligence, a result of indoctrination.
This isn't secularism. Someone might subscribe to a political ideology with the same fervor a theist does to his faith. Secularism is simply the stance of separation of the two. But I guess you're using the colloquial sense of secularism as an opponent to religious convictions, which is why a god-botherer is unable to distinguish their own faith in terms that are strictly areligious. It's like being convinced  there only exists 2 dimensions and when someone argues for a 3 dimensional world, they are unable to imagine objects in that frame, because they are tidal-locked in 2 dimensional thinking.

Atheism, by induction, in many ways frees people of the theistic thinking model (or dimension if you will) of religious convictions. It's taking a step back and seeing every religious conviction, each different from one another, to a new perspective; a perspective free of the opaque walls made into transparent glass, where the same errors in their thinking been made apparent: faith is unworkable.

The same failing exists in political ideologies, except there's a substantial qualitative difference between religion and politics, the former is based on faith, the latter on method.
There is very little wiggle-room for growth when you don't improve upon, or better yet, correct mistakes in a book - any book - be it political or religious. Our zeitgeists sensibilities towards slavery is an example of that.

Illustrated by many, is the difficulty or absurdity of separating religion from politics.  My POV is psychology, not theology.  Anthropology not Marxist historical revisionism.  I take religiosity as cultural not as epistemological (which is typically were atheists go).

It has been argued both ways, whether politics is a religion or atheism is a secular theism.  I don't see any possibility of resolving those, because they are ultimately about "feels" not reason (why pick those axioms vs was the deduction valid given the axioms).  Human beings have IQ and EQ.

Can things be improved?  Not really, we are pushing a rope.  The way the collective gets better is mostly thru individuals getting better ... which usually happens with cultivation and time.  The opposite, of changing the system and expecting people of whatever state of development, to toe the line, won't work.

Everyone eventually has to choose a "hill to die on".  For some this is theology or philosophy or ideology.  I choose psychology.

Eastern Orthodox culture ... St George has another bad day at the office, but the virgin is saved ...

« Last Edit: July 08, 2020, 02:58:21 PM by Baruch »
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.

Offline Paolo

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #27 on: July 09, 2020, 06:50:38 AM »
I don't think you did anything wrong, or have any reason to be embarrassed.  I try to explain, but I wasn't talking down to.  If you object to my content, well that is open to anyone.  In the Religion section I mostly try to clarify, not argue.  I am retired, so yes, I have the time.  Not as a comparison, as I don't visit other forums these days, but Vulcan who rarely posts here but more often at "atheistforums.org" (totally unrelated to this forum) is a really smart fellow.  Just saying.

Lol, ok...
Oh noes...I think I’m dead....

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2020, 08:13:41 AM »
Can things be improved?  Not really, we are pushing a rope.

You seem to grasp history pretty well for a bigtime R (who might be ironically living on SOCIALism Security and TAX FUNDED pensions as so many do.) Do you not think that the following aspects of human life have improved over the last few centuries as we left the medieval max-xtian times?

-Progress towards agreement on and adoption of basic human rights
-Less violence per capita, big picture-wise
-Literacy
-Lifespan/Medicine
-Communication
-Food/Clean water availability
-Leisure time and options
-So many micro brews, excellent whiskeys and Rock and Roll
-and my favorite... Scientific Knowledge

Certainly not all shared in the benefits equally and there have been plenty of setbacks, but I think our very successfulness is now what brings us to a crossroad.

 
« Last Edit: July 09, 2020, 08:33:09 AM by Cassia »

Offline Baruch

Re: Thoughts on the Immorality of Christianity
« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2020, 09:13:57 AM »
Card carrying Stalinist mam ;-)  Careful about projecting opinions on others, that is a lame rhetorical mistake.  Also distinguish between rhetorical postures vs real views.   But emoticons can help with that.

The fact that one has a smart phone isn't progress.  You didn't build it, you didn't invent it.  That is like saying cattle are smart if a college professor has a hobby farm.

This is an epistemological canard made by every collectivist, whether trying to get credit for things you didn't do, or trying to avoid blame for things you didn't do.

Goes back to the Middle Ages ... philosophical realism vs philosophical nominalism.  Though philosophical realism goes back to Plato's "forms".  For example:

Is "red" a category independent of any particular that has the property of "red"?  Plato says yes, and it is an ideal perfect red.  Nominalism says that "red" is only a property of the items in the set of things we aggregate on the basis of being categorized by the property "red".  Philosophical realism is the basis of the claim that real communism has never been tried.  It was never the ideal perfect "form" but the LARPing of real communism by states that aren't real communist.  That Communism wasn't a property of the set of countries like the Soviet Union etc. who could be characterized by the property "communist".
Ha’át’íísh baa naniná?
Azee’ ła’ish nanídį́į́h?
Táadoo ánít’iní.
What are you doing?
Are you taking any medications?
Don't do that.