Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
markdohle

An atheist scholar viewpoint on Jesus

120 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

DieChecker
On 6/26/2017 at 2:16 AM, eight bits said:

DC

It probably is true. The majority of people (Muslims and Christians) profess a commitment to a real historical Jesus, so there must be subpopulations within which a majority follows suit. My objection is not to dispute its truth, but to deny its relevance.

As to what I want: I too "find" that it is "more likely than not" that there was a real historical Jesus. Why wouldn't I want the majority of any group of honest, law-abiding folks to agree with me? Again, the problem is relevance.

The situation in our discussion is this: we have discussed "New Testament scholars" holding an opinion about Jesus. New Testament scholars are "Jesus experts" (there are Muslim Jesus experts, but since Jesus is such a relatively minor character in the Koran, it is nearly impossible for there to be many scholars of any religion specializing in Jesus who aren't also NT scholars.)

If you're going to look something up, then find out what the Wiki hive mind meant by the term "Near East historian." It is not self-explanatory, nor is its relationship to Jesus obvious (much Near East history isn't about the First Century, and much of the Near East isn't Palestine).

If it should turn out that there is some sizeable group of scholars whose viewpoint we haven't already discussed, then maybe we should. If not, then better for us to move on to something else.

I still feel you are nit picking the point. You want to challenge that there can be no experts on Jesus... Fine. I can see that. You now want to challenge that most middle eastern history experts might not be experts either. 

Here are some sites that do reinforce that Jesus possibly was a real person.

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/jesusrealquotes/

http://www.is-there-a-god.info/blog/belief/what-do-the-leading-secular-historians-say-about-jesus/

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-general-consensus-of-historians-not-theologians-on-Jesus-history-Is-the-message-of-the-Bible-true

I've been looking to see if there is a poll somewhere of historicians and Jesus, but didn't find one yet.

Quote

On a point arising

I hadn't previously noticed this in your exchange with psyche:

I didn't say that.

We have no writing from within a decade of Pliate's term. Paul wrote within two decades of his own conversion, but he wrote only a few surviving words that might bear on whether Jesus had any earthly career at all. The earliest survivng writing that unambiguously portrays Jesus as a natural person is Mark, which is usually dated three to five decades after the story it tells. The earliest extant mention by a non-Christian comes about six to eight decades after the events told by Mark.

Ah, but I didn't say we still had the documents. I meant to state that the documents we do have were probably written at that time. If Jesus died in 35 CE, then anything written before 45 CE would be within a decade.

But I see that the part I read actually you said written in the 50s, and he was active in the 40s. So I guess you are right on that part. So, let's alter that from "within 10 years" to "Within 15 years"??? I'm sorry if you felt mis-quoted.

On 6/21/2017 at 3:44 PM, eight bits said:

II'm comfortable that Paul very probably wrote some letters in the 50's, which refer to him being active in the 40's, maybe even the late 30's.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Hammer

I wrote against the chestnut that death necessarily resolves a secular uncertainty for everybody. We agree that if there is no continuing consciousness, then consciousness' not continuing ends that individual's uncertainty. Your personal faith about what may happen instead is your choice. Science is not a faith, and it doesn't offer anybody graves.


3ye

Mary Magdalene is an interesting character.

One of the VERY minority views I hold is that Mark 16:9-11 is authentic ("authentic" being a slippery word in literature anyway). Those verses are Mary's commission after the resurrection, her telling the eleven remaining male disciples, and their rejection of her testimony.

In the small world of Mark, Jesus' very first commissioned unsupervised preacher (the twelve have been appointed, but not yet sent out at this point in the story) is also somebody from whom he exorcized many demons (5:1-20). A curiosity of Mark is that the only characters who fully recognize what Jesus is on about are the demons. Perhaps those who had to live with the demons understand, too.

In the larger world of the very earliest Christianities, I think there were groups in which Mary was a focal character along with Jesus. We have a few writings that show that. These groups lost out to the male-dominated death-cult versions. Among other things, that defeat explains why our "earliest and best" copies of Mark are cut back to 16:8.

Coming full circle to the topic, Mark is the earliest extant writing that unabiguously depicts Jesus as living and dying on earth. All other surviving ancient versions of that story "show awareness" of Mark (and sometines copy him verbatim). And what do you know? We don't have any copy of the writing that doesn't display the toolmarks of having been fiddled with. But hey, the consensus of those who are recognized by one another as experts because they share the consensus agree that the consensus is correct. That's reassuring.

 

ETA: DC (with apologies that I'm heading off to an appointment IRL)

You and I agree that there is a consensus. We disagree about its relevance. That is all. There is a limit to how many times it is productive to repeat that. I think we've passed that point.

As to the timeline, I recommend Early Christian Writings (Peter Kirby's site). It really is "neutral," and I've usually found its estimated date ranges acceptable to almost all "sides" in the many webly discussions I've had about the HJ-MJ questions.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
18 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Any confirmation of existence after death ends the speculation for the individual. I choose Faith that there is, having nothing to lose. At the end of your life, all science has to offer is a grave.

I think you're right. There is a part of me, that science might have something up it's sleeve on that, but remember.......... that's just me. :D  ;)  :wacko:   

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

Well, I was kind of not thinking of division of humanity, when I was discussing how faith is there for people. I'm more looking at it in a more individualistic way. Though, I think you brought up a point that makes sense. And yes, I see it being there too, the division of humanity. And I feel, that can be a problem as well. 

It's that individual aspect that tends to bias the outlook I find. Like the grandma who is 110 and still drinking and smoking. It does not mean drinking and smoking offers longevity, nor does religion as Walkers instance that it did offered otherwise. Religion is pretending to help when the actual working factor here is community. I feel this is illustrated when we see one side of faith helping and another terrorising. Sharing the burden is what actually helps, not the belief itself.

Oh, trust me! I believe that implicitly. I'm one for teamwork, I have seen that played out, even the worst organized situations. Though, when it comes to that individualistic approach, that the individual does to help them, I don't agree with you. (Sorry, :blush: ) Even, if it's not done for others to see. How would everyone else know, that it helps or doesn't help, or it's irrelevant? 

Like the point you mentioned, that I put in bold, I agree there are George Burns situations,  and even then, one must not definitely make it a point to say 'it always will or will not do this' when talking about something. There will always be examples, if in one instance, or those in very large groups, that will go against the ratio of chances of something happening. I often don't take too seriously the ration of chances, even if it's one in a million. Unless, it's one hundred percent of the time, then it's something I will be kind of 'whatever' toward. I think this could be said of those who half depend, ( I said half, not whole ;) ) on their belief system on their own, and it happens to help them, and others wouldn't know it? Maybe the positive outcome could come from causation, and maybe not. I think, in one sense, it doesn't make a difference to ban it from everyone. 

If anything, it's like those with handicaps needed something extra to be able to work with everyone else. Like I need to double up on my sources, or feel I should approach something from a different angle, to counter my slight learning ability. Some may feel that's a waste of time, but not to me. It helps me be part of the group to get something done. 

I think those who feel religion guides them, that is the same thing. I think, that those who feel, they think it's not needed and go on from there, well that's just as good as well. If I go a little bit more on this, I feel anyone who pushes someone else to practice a religion they don't feel comfortable with, or someone else pushes someone to not do that, when they feel it actually helps them, well I think that actually gets in the way. We're not all cut from the same cloth. If it's a cut and dried solution of doing the religion, or not doing the religion, we all would be the same with no handicaps, behaviors issues, or experiences that have scarred us. Sorry, Psyche, that's how I feel and see it. 

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

Though, I am not disagreeing on how there seems to be barbarity in varying religious areas, I have also seen when it actually walks the talk. I think in the end, it's how it's used. If in a more grouped way, I think it can get dangerous, when you have to fall into a group thinking, and if it's a negative outlook, yeah, that can be dangerous. 

It is not walking the walk in Wahabbi communities or Westboro, if it really was some sort of God making these perceptions play out then it would have to be universal according the the ascribed nature of God and Jesus. What I am seeing is groups of people telling each other how to live. If you tow the line in such a community then no doubt one will be accepted but once one steps outside that circle, things usually get nasty which defies the original concept of a loving God. In this way it set more up to fail than it helps. Fundamentalists are the most devout to the word of God yet often make the very worst kind of people. If we take it with a grain of salt, is that not admitting the concept is man made?

Well, this is exactly what I meant when I said, I do see barbarity in varying religious areas. And I'm not talking about one sided individuals and situations, who can't see past that or themselves. In fact, I agree with you. Though, within religions, and beliefs, and such, it's not all that. There are those who do abide by their religion and beliefs, and actually accept others, give their time and selves to others, and encourage others to be themselves, beliefs or lack of them a part of that. I have seen that. I try to be that myself in my religion. 

(By the way, GAWD I missed you and these synapse-tingling conversations. :tu:  :D )

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

You're right, people still do give up when it is hard. I have been aware of it. Though, I hope you believe me, I have some have been helped with religion being their guide. And I know, you might find it hard to believe. (and I respect you seeing that and feel that you rightfully see that), but I have felt that I have experienced various 'miraculous' situations. I'm not shouting out into the world about it and feel I can see that it's not all miracles, but in a sense, the outlook tends to give some sense of positiveness and peace while dealing with life's problems. I know, everyone is different, and everyone should deal with it the way they feel is necessary. 

Again the grandma scenario though.

I have recently been involved with some people who were saved from suicide, people, not God, are the ones to thank for many lives. Religion is what have many of these people a reason to kill themselves. I saw a thread here about a year ago.on some kid who suicided because of his religious stance on finding out he was gay. All these people who die because if the concept don't get a mention otherwise I am quite sure that we would not hear about so many being saved by religion if we had a realistic grasp on how many it sends to an early grave.

Well, here's the thing Psyche, is it just the religion? (I'm not saying religion is not doing that. I know, various religions have as their tenets things that are against the rights of practically everyone.) I feel, it's also the people within that encourage that behavior. I have seen those in a religion, who have helped suicidal and they do it without their religious agenda, and encourage the person to be themselves. I am reminded, the days after 9/11, where a part of the mall I was working in and various retail companies were closing their stores for an hour to remember the victims, (the store I worked for was one of them) I ended up going to the mall's chapel (you know for the life of me, this mall was the only mall I have worked in that had one, and I have worked in quite a few malls.) and going in to sit and reflect, those that were there welcomed us and allowed us to do so within our own ways. They were very warm and understanding about it. That, I will never forget. 

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

So in a sense, there are those not helped by religion, and then there are those who I have noticed that are helped by religion. I have seen it's not always it worked/it didn't worked end of it. 

I do feel it is community not religion. Religion hijacked the outcome by putting an authority figure in there.

And I wanted it to be known, I also feel it's the community as well. (Even for introverts, and I should know, I'm one. :D ) And like the situation of the mall chapel, not all religions have the aspect of my way or screw the highway, it's my way. I see this authority figure in it, yes, but not all of the time. I don't want to change how you feel. I more than respect it, I understand it's how you feel, like how I feel about it too, and yes, some of it is different to your's. :) 

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

I can see your point on that. And yes, it does seem that those almost insist of his existence, when it's weighty whether he did or not. I feel he did, but that's my feeling, and even that is based on sketchy feelings. It's not something I'm trying to push onto someone else. 

I just feel such claims should provide real validation of the claims or cease and desist. It's a false picture designed to benefit faith based organisations. 

And I agree one hundred percent of that. And I have seen that countless times, and I think it get's me when I see that a lot. That even makes me wonder at my belief, and understand if it's seen as weird, because I don't put a must of it must be spread on it. I don't preach to others, I want it just for myself. I know, one thing, if it's something that can be proven, then I will feel I would talk about it, and even then in my personal subjective way, not objective. 

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

In the end, I'm not sure if I can speak for them, because I don't see it as they do. 

I would like to see them speak for themselves. If there is proof, well and good, of we are just speaking about made up feel good tall tales then I feel that should be exhibited as well.

I fell while people are entitled to their own opinions,they are not entitled to their own facts, everyone owns fact.

Agreed. :tu: 

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

Yeah, I agree with that too. I am really wondering why they go through that. In fact, I'm more :angry: on the Sandy Hook  deniers and really want to know what they really after with that. That p***es me off. 

Anyways, there does seem to be an agenda, and probably egocentrically at that. 

Exactly, if furthers could prove any of the BS they spread, it would not be just a whacky claim, it would be history. They are attention seekers of the worst kind.

Agreed on that as well. :tu:  :) 

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

Oh dear, I'm so sorry to hear that. I hope you're ok now. (((Hugs))) :wub: 

Getting there. Been a very tough time but I do see a light at the end of the tunnel, wether that is a train or not remains 's to be seen. Not had an awesome year so far.

Well, to be considerate toward your outlook, I feel bad being all the way up here. I guess the only thing I could offer, other than I am thinking good thoughts for you, is keep attempting to make you laugh any way I can. :wacko: And, hoping that helps. 

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

Well, that I agree. I'm just more talking about the relevance of the search, and not the result. Yes, the result should always be true. 

That's all I'm about really, had enough.Of BS.to see the crest.Of my.Life out already.

And, I knew that. :yes:  

You know, I knew that.................... of you. Right? :blush: 

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

And to see you back here and to hear from you as well. *Hugs* my friend. :)  

Miss you all, been lurking from time to time hope to see more of you all.

:) 

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Sorry for the spelling I.am on a phone

It REALLY seems to like full.stops....... too..........

I do voice to text, when I do post on my phone, and boy, if I didn't reread what I write (or speak ;) ) before I post, there would be Hell to pay. :lol: 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Sorry for the spelling I.am on a phone

It REALLY seems to like full.stops....... too..........

Psyche, where have you been? I have missed you. Good to see you back. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FLOMBIE
3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Psyche, where have you been? I have missed you. Good to see you back. 

I agree. It is, indeed! icon_beer.gif

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
10 hours ago, eight bits said:

Hammer

I wrote against the chestnut that death necessarily resolves a secular uncertainty for everybody. We agree that if there is no continuing consciousness, then consciousness' not continuing ends that individual's uncertainty. Your personal faith about what may happen instead is your choice. Science is not a faith, and it doesn't offer anybody graves.


3ye

Mary Magdalene is an interesting character.

One of the VERY minority views I hold is that Mark 16:9-11 is authentic ("authentic" being a slippery word in literature anyway). Those verses are Mary's commission after the resurrection, her telling the eleven remaining male disciples, and their rejection of her testimony.

In the small world of Mark, Jesus' very first commissioned unsupervised preacher (the twelve have been appointed, but not yet sent out at this point in the story) is also somebody from whom he exorcized many demons (5:1-20). A curiosity of Mark is that the only characters who fully recognize what Jesus is on about are the demons. Perhaps those who had to live with the demons understand, too.

In the larger world of the very earliest Christianities, I think there were groups in which Mary was a focal character along with Jesus. We have a few writings that show that. These groups lost out to the male-dominated death-cult versions. Among other things, that defeat explains why our "earliest and best" copies of Mark are cut back to 16:8.

Coming full circle to the topic, Mark is the earliest extant writing that unabiguously depicts Jesus as living and dying on earth. All other surviving ancient versions of that story "show awareness" of Mark (and sometines copy him verbatim). And what do you know? We don't have any copy of the writing that doesn't display the toolmarks of having been fiddled with. But hey, the consensus of those who are recognized by one another as experts because they share the consensus agree that the consensus is correct. That's reassuring.

 

ETA: DC (with apologies that I'm heading off to an appointment IRL)

You and I agree that there is a consensus. We disagree about its relevance. That is all. There is a limit to how many times it is productive to repeat that. I think we've passed that point.

As to the timeline, I recommend Early Christian Writings (Peter Kirby's site). It really is "neutral," and I've usually found its estimated date ranges acceptable to almost all "sides" in the many webly discussions I've had about the HJ-MJ questions.

http://earlychristianwritings.com/

Science offers nothing but what science has to offer, which is fact. It's a fact that life ends in death and the grave From a scientific perspective, it's pretty conclusive. Science has nothing to offer concerning life after death but the certainty of the grave. I never said science was a religion. That was your straw man interpolation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

Hammer

Quote

Science offers nothing but what science has to offer, which is fact. It's a fact that life ends in death and the grave

It's not on science if that's how it is. Science doesn't even say that that is how it is, not say that that isn't how it is. Science only speaks when it knows what it's talking about. That's not necessarily such a bad thing.

Quote

Science has nothing to offer concerning life after death but the certainty of the grave

Mathematics doesn't have anything to offer about it, either. So what?

Having a beef with science is like having a beef with artihmetic. Whatever floats your boat, of course.

Quote

I never said science was a religion. That was your straw man interpolation.

I never said you did. That's your straw man.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 6/28/2017 at 8:45 PM, psyche101 said:

It is not walking the walk in Wahabbi communities or Westboro, if it really was some sort of God making these perceptions play out then it would have to be universal according the the ascribed nature of God and Jesus. What I am seeing is groups of people telling each other how to live. If you tow the line in such a community then no doubt one will be accepted but once one steps outside that circle, things usually get nasty which defies the original concept of a loving God. In this way it set more up to fail than it helps. Fundamentalists are the most devout to the word of God yet often make the very worst kind of people. If we take it with a grain of salt, is that not admitting the concept is man made?

I'd say it depends on your definition of the word "Fundamentalist", because I think I'd qualify as a Fundamentalist under many descriptions, but I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, or a Biblical Literalist. I have met many people who were the Worst Sort of People, and who were also Religious, but I think it simply is an issue of statistics. If you have a greater number of people being religious, you're going to find a greater number of evil, mean, stupid, ignorant, or intolerant people are also religious. It is simple statistics. I do agree that more poor people, and more "stupid" people are probably religious, but I think that has more to do with Education then with them actually being poor, or ignorant.

Quote

I have recently been involved with some people who were saved from suicide, people, not God, are the ones to thank for many lives. Religion is what have many of these people a reason to kill themselves. I saw a thread here about a year ago.on some kid who suicided because of his religious stance on finding out he was gay. All these people who die because if the concept don't get a mention otherwise I am quite sure that we would not hear about so many being saved by religion if we had a realistic grasp on how many it sends to an early grave.

I read an article about a gay fellow who became a Conservative Christian and it "saved his life", does the one cancel out the other? Are individual stories relevant?

Quote

I do feel it is community not religion. Religion hijacked the outcome by putting an authority figure in there.

Quite likely. I still think you use the tools that already exist. When a better form of Community Building shows up and is time tested, then we can switch over. Till then.....

Back to work.... 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
5 hours ago, DieChecker said:
On 6/28/2017 at 11:45 PM, psyche101 said:

It is not walking the walk in Wahabbi communities or Westboro, if it really was some sort of God making these perceptions play out then it would have to be universal according the the ascribed nature of God and Jesus. What I am seeing is groups of people telling each other how to live. If you tow the line in such a community then no doubt one will be accepted but once one steps outside that circle, things usually get nasty which defies the original concept of a loving God. In this way it set more up to fail than it helps. Fundamentalists are the most devout to the word of God yet often make the very worst kind of people. If we take it with a grain of salt, is that not admitting the concept is man made?

I'd say it depends on your definition of the word "Fundamentalist", because I think I'd qualify as a Fundamentalist under many descriptions, but I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, or a Biblical Literalist. I have met many people who were the Worst Sort of People, and who were also Religious, but I think it simply is an issue of statistics. If you have a greater number of people being religious, you're going to find a greater number of evil, mean, stupid, ignorant, or intolerant people are also religious. It is simple statistics. I do agree that more poor people, and more "stupid" people are probably religious, but I think that has more to do with Education then with them actually being poor, or ignorant.

I would have to agree with DC here. I think education, or the lack there of, plays a part here. Having lived in various places in the states, I get to see the various level of ways of living and how the behave. And I saw, where there is a lack of education and the abundance of it and how that plays out. I will never forget constantly reading the opinion pages in UPstate NY and how so many educated individuals would write in about being religious and seeing how the reason to accept homosexuals for who they are and why they are a part of the world. I have also seen some very uneducated Atheists who were very bigoted toward them. Though that would be 'some' but their lack of education is usually the key here. 

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:
Quote

I have recently been involved with some people who were saved from suicide, people, not God, are the ones to thank for many lives. Religion is what have many of these people a reason to kill themselves. I saw a thread here about a year ago.on some kid who suicided because of his religious stance on finding out he was gay. All these people who die because if the concept don't get a mention otherwise I am quite sure that we would not hear about so many being saved by religion if we had a realistic grasp on how many it sends to an early grave.

I read an article about a gay fellow who became a Conservative Christian and it "saved his life", does the one cancel out the other? Are individual stories relevant?

I have heard of these too, DC, but I'm weary on that example, and other examples of them being saved when they do become like that. He may have converted and stayed alive, but how does he cope from then on? Is he still true to himself? (I know of religious individuals who are true to themselves and live the life of it too.) I am wondering of that individual few years down the road and how he is dealing with living a lie (thinking he's heterosexual) and how's he's looking at life. I have known quite a few gay friends who would get engaged to women, but that ended up not happening. 

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:
Quote

I do feel it is community not religion. Religion hijacked the outcome by putting an authority figure in there.

Quite likely. I still think you use the tools that already exist. When a better form of Community Building shows up and is time tested, then we can switch over. Till then.....

Back to work.... 

Exactly. But, I like to make something known, that I think I mentioned earlier to Psyche, it's community whether religion is mixed into it or not. I do feel, sometimes I see good religious communities and good non-religious communities, and vice versa on both. I think you're right, it's the tools. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1029

It is amazing how many people say "science says this" or "science says that" but can never offer anything remotely scientific to back up their speculation.

Doug

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
23 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I would have to agree with DC here. I think education, or the lack there of, plays a part here. Having lived in various places in the states, I get to see the various level of ways of living and how the behave. And I saw, where there is a lack of education and the abundance of it and how that plays out. I will never forget constantly reading the opinion pages in UPstate NY and how so many educated individuals would write in about being religious and seeing how the reason to accept homosexuals for who they are and why they are a part of the world. I have also seen some very uneducated Atheists who were very bigoted toward them. Though that would be 'some' but their lack of education is usually the key here. 

:tu:. Same thing, I feel, with violence. Being religious doesn't make you more or less violent. It is the upbringing of the individual (with violence, or without violence) that is more telling. People often try to say Muslims, or Christians even, are more violent then atheists, however, I think it simply has to do with the environment they were raised in. A Muslim raised in the US is a (usually) a lot less violent then one raised in, say, Syria or the Gaza Strip. 

Quote

I have heard of these too, DC, but I'm weary on that example, and other examples of them being saved when they do become like that. He may have converted and stayed alive, but how does he cope from then on? Is he still true to himself? (I know of religious individuals who are true to themselves and live the life of it too.) I am wondering of that individual few years down the road and how he is dealing with living a lie (thinking he's heterosexual) and how's he's looking at life. I have known quite a few gay friends who would get engaged to women, but that ended up not happening. 

Depends. It is the politically correct thing to do today to say being LGBTQ is genetic, and can not be helped, but excepting the point that being gay (generally) hurts no one, it could very, very easily be considered a genetic defect, or even a mental disorder. Examples from nature of homosexuality don't otherwise prevent it from being a genetic defect, but perhaps with only a harmless side effect.

I think being gay is kind of like being "black" in today's society, because gays are TOLD they are being attacked, and told they need to be afraid and told that the boogieman is going to get them. Thus, they see what they expect to see... Homophobia everywhere. Just as US blacks see Racism in every sentence and every action of many white people. They too are told they are being attacked, intolerated (is that a word?) and the boogieman (whitey) is out to get them. Both seem to see what they expect/want to see even if it really isn't there.

Quote

Exactly. But, I like to make something known, that I think I mentioned earlier to Psyche, it's community whether religion is mixed into it or not. I do feel, sometimes I see good religious communities and good non-religious communities, and vice versa on both. I think you're right, it's the tools. 

I've agreed with Psyche many times that the "good" ethics, morals and behaviors, that would build a good society can, and probably will, be passed down through some agency other then religion some day. I just don't think that is going to be soon. Religion still serves a very real purpose, especially in the 66% of the world where people don't regularly have internet, and can't be "exposed/controlled" by humanistic news appeals.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
22 minutes ago, DieChecker said:
On 6/30/2017 at 9:07 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I would have to agree with DC here. I think education, or the lack there of, plays a part here. Having lived in various places in the states, I get to see the various level of ways of living and how the behave. And I saw, where there is a lack of education and the abundance of it and how that plays out. I will never forget constantly reading the opinion pages in UPstate NY and how so many educated individuals would write in about being religious and seeing how the reason to accept homosexuals for who they are and why they are a part of the world. I have also seen some very uneducated Atheists who were very bigoted toward them. Though that would be 'some' but their lack of education is usually the key here. 

:tu:. Same thing, I feel, with violence. Being religious doesn't make you more or less violent. It is the upbringing of the individual (with violence, or without violence) that is more telling. People often try to say Muslims, or Christians even, are more violent then atheists, however, I think it simply has to do with the environment they were raised in. A Muslim raised in the US is a (usually) a lot less violent then one raised in, say, Syria or the Gaza Strip. 

I have waited on a lot of Muslims and those within the religion and culture and race, to see a very wide area of very kind and very considerate and peaceful individuals. And I see a lot of wide varieties of people from races and beliefs, and lack of beliefs, of those who behave besides that. I feel, in my lifelong observations, one cannot just say one thing from one race and religion like that. In the end, I see it's the individual and how they are probably raised. 

25 minutes ago, DieChecker said:
Quote

I have heard of these too, DC, but I'm weary on that example, and other examples of them being saved when they do become like that. He may have converted and stayed alive, but how does he cope from then on? Is he still true to himself? (I know of religious individuals who are true to themselves and live the life of it too.) I am wondering of that individual few years down the road and how he is dealing with living a lie (thinking he's heterosexual) and how's he's looking at life. I have known quite a few gay friends who would get engaged to women, but that ended up not happening. 

Depends. It is the politically correct thing to do today to say being LGBTQ is genetic, and can not be helped, but excepting the point that being gay (generally) hurts no one, it could very, very easily be considered a genetic defect, or even a mental disorder. Examples from nature of homosexuality don't otherwise prevent it from being a genetic defect, but perhaps with only a harmless side effect.

I'm sorry, but I'm more inclined to say it is genetic.  I think also, because of the treatment they have and still receive, why would they 'chose' it? I think, today is their time to make a difference in getting more attention out, that they are being mistreated, that they people, and they want it to stop. Like I think, the attention that other groups, the African Americans, women, the handicap, that needed to call attention to their plight, and in some sense it worked, so do the LGBTQ today. 

There maybe some who 'want' to call themselves victims, but I see very little of them. Most of the time, it is being victims. 

Quote

I think being gay is kind of like being "black" in today's society, because gays are TOLD they are being attacked, and told they need to be afraid and told that the boogieman is going to get them. Thus, they see what they expect to see... Homophobia everywhere. Just as US blacks see Racism in every sentence and every action of many white people. They too are told they are being attacked, intolerated (is that a word?) and the boogieman (whitey) is out to get them. Both seem to see what they expect/want to see even if it really isn't there.

I'm sorry, DC, but I strongly disagree with this. I see both areas actually being bigoted against. I have witnessed it!! Many times. Like when friends of mine, from living in Jersey, who were pulled over more so, than I would be, when going through the same area, and I being a younger white person, and they being much older to me, and cannot hurt or influence a fly. I see varying people who react with such anger and disgust toward homosexuals, and they have no reasoning for that. To me, it's not them being trendy victim thing, they are actually being victimized. 

36 minutes ago, DieChecker said:
Quote

Exactly. But, I like to make something known, that I think I mentioned earlier to Psyche, it's community whether religion is mixed into it or not. I do feel, sometimes I see good religious communities and good non-religious communities, and vice versa on both. I think you're right, it's the tools. 

I've agreed with Psyche many times that the "good" ethics, morals and behaviors, that would build a good society can, and probably will, be passed down through some agency other then religion some day. I just don't think that is going to be soon. Religion still serves a very real purpose, especially in the 66% of the world where people don't regularly have internet, and can't be "exposed/controlled" by humanistic news appeals.

If it does happen where religion is mainstreamed outlawed, there will be those who will do it in secret. I agree with you, that religion still serves a very real purpose to individuals and groups in the personal sense, and other positive ramifications sitiatuion. 

But, I think this goes with what I always feel, there are positives and negatives within all such situations and cultural aspects, and I don't think a certain belief and such can be pin pointed as one thing only just like that. It's too convoluted with good and bad to be that. I guess, I have been exposed to the many sides of lots of things, to feel on one side of it. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
33 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I'm sorry, but I'm more inclined to say it is genetic.  I think also, because of the treatment they have and still receive, why would they 'chose' it? I think, today is their time to make a difference in getting more attention out, that they are being mistreated, that they people, and they want it to stop. Like I think, the attention that other groups, the African Americans, women, the handicap, that needed to call attention to their plight, and in some sense it worked, so do the LGBTQ today. 

There maybe some who 'want' to call themselves victims, but I see very little of them. Most of the time, it is being victims. 

I didn't even say it was a choice. I said by some definitions it could be considered a genetic disability, or a mental condition. Neither would be something a person chose. The main reason/argument against such is that being gay really hurts no one. But, IMHO, that is just excusing the defect/condition, rather then saying it isn't such. 

Quote

I'm sorry, DC, but I strongly disagree with this. I see both areas actually being bigoted against. I have witnessed it!! Many times. Like when friends of mine, from living in Jersey, who were pulled over more so, than I would be, when going through the same area, and I being a younger white person, and they being much older to me, and cannot hurt or influence a fly. I see varying people who react with such anger and disgust toward homosexuals, and they have no reasoning for that. To me, it's not them being trendy victim thing, they are actually being victimized. 

I've seen many instances of both racism toward blacks and orientation hatred even right here in the Liberal heart of Oregon... But, I'd point out that even if there were 500 such instances a year (And it is no where near that)... The city of Portland and surrounding metro area is 2.4 million people. So, the real total Haters, who go out of their way to bash gays, or blacks, would be a tiny, tiny percentage of the people. Back in the 1940s and 1950s, it would have been 10% or more... who were open KKK members and such. I feel that those who are "oppressed" take the outrage spurred on by the media (For ratings), and apply it across the entirety of the population, when really it is only a few crazies out there really.

Living in fear of a handful is a learned and practiced response, and is IMHO, passed down by the parents and grandparents.

At least that is my experience here on the West Coast and the western Flyover States. I've been to Georgia for two years in the 90s and I can say that racism was alive and well down there at that time.... But, I'd say it was a mutual thing... Many blacks hated me and cussed me out, and tried to stomp a hole in me, just because I was white... I'd done zero to them.

Probably enough on the gay/black thing though.... :wacko: I think I've led the discussion a bit afield. 

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
21 hours ago, DieChecker said:
22 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I'm sorry, but I'm more inclined to say it is genetic.  I think also, because of the treatment they have and still receive, why would they 'chose' it? I think, today is their time to make a difference in getting more attention out, that they are being mistreated, that they people, and they want it to stop. Like I think, the attention that other groups, the African Americans, women, the handicap, that needed to call attention to their plight, and in some sense it worked, so do the LGBTQ today. 

There maybe some who 'want' to call themselves victims, but I see very little of them. Most of the time, it is being victims. 

I didn't even say it was a choice. I said by some definitions it could be considered a genetic disability, or a mental condition. Neither would be something a person chose. The main reason/argument against such is that being gay really hurts no one. But, IMHO, that is just excusing the defect/condition, rather then saying it isn't such. 

I didn't feel you were, but there are things I felt I wanted to say on my opinion of it. I also don't like to either jump quickly it being used an excuse. I don't think it is. That is should be brought out more, because I see too much of it still being thought as a choice. Not by you, but by others and mostly in the real world. 

21 hours ago, DieChecker said:

re... who were open KKK members and such. I feel that those who are "oppressed" take the outrage spurred on by the media (For ratings), and apply it across the entirety of the population, when really it is only a few crazies out there really.

Living in fear of a handful is a learned and practiced response, and is IMHO, passed down by the parents and grandparents.

At least that is my experience here on the West Coast and the western Flyover States. I've been to Georgia for two years in the 90s and I can say that racism was alive and well down there at that time.... But, I'd say it was a mutual thing... Many blacks hated me and cussed me out, and tried to stomp a hole in me, just because I was white... I'd done zero to them.

Probably enough on the gay/black thing though.... :wacko: I think I've led the discussion a bit afield. 

I'm not going to excuse their behavior, but I feel that it's more understandable for their feelings, considering they have the most bigotry attached to them. Though, I'm sorry, you had that. I have had it too, trust me. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
On 6/29/2017 at 11:12 AM, Hammerclaw said:

Yes, that will all look nice, carved on your headstone. 

Why, I didn't know you cared ... more likely an urn though, the way things are going, those that are buried in plots are gonna get dug up and moved sooner or later as far as things goes in relation to 'eternity' ...

~

On 6/29/2017 at 7:13 PM, eight bits said:

3ye

Mary Magdalene is an interesting character.

One of the VERY minority views I hold is that Mark 16:9-11 is authentic ("authentic" being a slippery word in literature anyway). Those verses are Mary's commission after the resurrection, her telling the eleven remaining male disciples, and their rejection of her testimony.

In the small world of Mark, Jesus' very first commissioned unsupervised preacher (the twelve have been appointed, but not yet sent out at this point in the story) is also somebody from whom he exorcized many demons (5:1-20). A curiosity of Mark is that the only characters who fully recognize what Jesus is on about are the demons. Perhaps those who had to live with the demons understand, too.

Guess the Pope of our days knows exactly what you mean ...

:yes:

 

 

Quote

 

An Inconvenient Woman

By Jonathan Darman On 5/28/06 at 8:00 PM

 

~

Quote


Mary Magdalene gets her feast

Elizabeth A. Elliott  |  Jun. 10, 2016


 

~

You know that old saying ... behind every successful man ...

:D

~

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits

3ye

Lol. I just realized that your Latin motto is from that first commissioned preacher, the man from whose mouth came Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus ...

Small world :) .

Anyway, yes, Francis has been kind to Mary. It's interesting that strong women were important in his younger life

https://uncertaintist.wordpress.com/2013/09/26/popes-strong-women-are-particular-women/

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye
11 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Lol. I just realized that your Latin motto is from that first commissioned preacher, the man from whose mouth came Legio nomen mihi est, quia multi sumus ...

:blush:

~

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2017-6-30 at 0:20 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I think you're right. There is a part of me, that science might have something up it's sleeve on that, but remember.......... that's just me. :D  ;)  :wacko:   

 

Quote

Oh, trust me! I believe that implicitly. I'm one for teamwork, I have seen that played out, even the worst organized situations. Though, when it comes to that individualistic approach, that the individual does to help them, I don't agree with you. (Sorry, :blush: ) Even, if it's not done for others to see. How would everyone else know, that it helps or doesn't help, or it's irrelevant? 

Like the point you mentioned, that I put in bold, I agree there are George Burns situations,  and even then, one must not definitely make it a point to say 'it always will or will not do this' when talking about something. There will always be examples, if in one instance, or those in very large groups, that will go against the ratio of chances of something happening. I often don't take too seriously the ration of chances, even if it's one in a million. Unless, it's one hundred percent of the time, then it's something I will be kind of 'whatever' toward. I think this could be said of those who half depend, ( I said half, not whole ;) ) on their belief system on their own, and it happens to help them, and others wouldn't know it? Maybe the positive outcome could come from causation, and maybe not. I think, in one sense, it doesn't make a difference to ban it from everyone. 

If anything, it's like those with handicaps needed something extra to be able to work with everyone else. Like I need to double up on my sources, or feel I should approach something from a different angle, to counter my slight learning ability. Some may feel that's a waste of time, but not to me. It helps me be part of the group to get something done. 

I think those who feel religion guides them, that is the same thing. I think, that those who feel, they think it's not needed and go on from there, well that's just as good as well. If I go a little bit more on this, I feel anyone who pushes someone else to practice a religion they don't feel comfortable with, or someone else pushes someone to not do that, when they feel it actually helps them, well I think that actually gets in the way. We're not all cut from the same cloth. If it's a cut and dried solution of doing the religion, or not doing the religion, we all would be the same with no handicaps, behaviors issues, or experiences that have scarred us. Sorry, Psyche, that's how I feel and see it. 

But that individual aspect is where it falls apart too, if a grandma told her grandchildren to drink and smoke heavily to attain longevity, she would be speaking from direct experience, and it might bit affect 1 in a hundred validating her claim to those two people. I don't see that different to preaching or even spreading the so called good word. Religion sets up certain ideals that are not compatible and as such many take their own lives as they cannot live up to that standard.

We just do not hear about those cases, but if you look you will find them sorry, I am struggling to post or I would offer a link to some examples. We gloss over these lost lives for the positive claims which I honestly feel are overzealous in nature. 

If it is not repeatable, if it is based in conjecture, we cannot be getting the complete picture, and I think if we did, we might reconsider the method. The drinking smoking grandma might be certain she is helping but she is not, like anti vaxxers who also.spread misinformation often with good intentions. One child might have a better life while hundreds die because of those good intentions. 

Quote

Well, this is exactly what I meant when I said, I do see barbarity in varying religious areas. And I'm not talking about one sided individuals and situations, who can't see past that or themselves. In fact, I agree with you. Though, within religions, and beliefs, and such, it's not all that. There are those who do abide by their religion and beliefs, and actually accept others, give their time and selves to others, and encourage others to be themselves, beliefs or lack of them a part of that. I have seen that. I try to be that myself in my religion. 

But look at the nicest Christians, they are rarely devout. They take what they want and dismiss the rest, the more faithful, the worse a society is. It seems to me that this indicates most know there is nothing to it but go with it anyway. IS followers pray several.times a day and they seem to feel that gives them the authority to kill for their God. 

Quote

(By the way, GAWD I missed you and these synapse-tingling conversations. :tu:  :D )

I miss you guys too big time. 

Quote

Well, here's the thing Psyche, is it just the religion? (I'm not saying religion is not doing that. I know, various religions have as their tenets things that are against the rights of practically everyone.) I feel, it's also the people within that encourage that behavior. I have seen those in a religion, who have helped suicidal and they do it without their religious agenda, and encourage the person to be themselves. I am reminded, the days after 9/11, where a part of the mall I was working in and various retail companies were closing their stores for an hour to remember the victims, (the store I worked for was one of them) I ended up going to the mall's chapel (you know for the life of me, this mall was the only mall I have worked in that had one, and I have worked in quite a few malls.) and going in to sit and reflect, those that were there welcomed us and allowed us to do so within our own ways. They were very warm and understanding about it. That, I will never forget. 

I do feel religion is a springboard to megalomania. And that is how and when it falls apart. I honestly feel the psychos like army of God and Westboro are just smaller examples of religion run wild. As religion has lost that power in the West, things have got better. Christians who take the bible with a grain of salt (about the size of the rock of Gibraltar) are without doubt the most pleasant. To me that seems a very small step from atheism. 

Quote

And I wanted it to be known, I also feel it's the community as well. (Even for introverts, and I should know, I'm one. :D ) And like the situation of the mall chapel, not all religions have the aspect of my way or screw the highway, it's my way. I see this authority figure in it, yes, but not all of the time. I don't want to change how you feel. I more than respect it, I understand it's how you feel, like how I feel about it too, and yes, some of it is different to your's. :) 

The problem there is that religion claims to be the answer when it is not and many, as we have seen from mr walker in particular, insist it is the belief, and such skewed ideals can misdirection the real helpful quality of community, which means that which can really help others is squandered for promotional purposes, so while a like minded community can help, many miss out in order to champion and recruit people to.an ideal. 

Quote

And I agree one hundred percent of that. And I have seen that countless times, and I think it get's me when I see that a lot. That even makes me wonder at my belief, and understand if it's seen as weird, because I don't put a must of it must be spread on it. I don't preach to others, I want it just for myself. I know, one thing, if it's something that can be proven, then I will feel I would talk about it, and even then in my personal subjective way, not objective. 

I don't begrudge beliefs, but I do the ideal. As one gains more understanding of the sciences it becomes impossible to resolve. It cannot be proven beyond n any physical way because the ideal cannot be resolved with modern understanding. In science that would just be a failed hypothesis, but the emotional attachment to religion offers it a sense of validity that it really does not deserve.

Quote

Agreed. :tu: 

Agreed on that as well. :tu:  :) 

:tu:

Quote

Well, to be considerate toward your outlook, I feel bad being all the way up here. I guess the only thing I could offer, other than I am thinking good thoughts for you, is keep attempting to make you laugh any way I can. :wacko: And, hoping that helps. 

My friends are why I am still here today, every bit that makes a day better counts.

Quote

And, I knew that. :yes:  

You know, I knew that.................... of you. Right? :blush: 

:) 

Yep, and yeah I realise I get repetitive there but it's a bit like the energy our body produces and holds, and dissipates on death. That knowledge is not refuted, but it clashes wildly with the ideas of body energy surviving death, I get stuck at the point where real world knowledge is challenged by something that simply makes no sense and is not at all supported. Just scratching me head mostly thinking how do we get to that point when we have knowledge that outright refuted it and is not in question by either party?

Quote

I do voice to text, when I do post on my phone, and boy, if I didn't reread what I write (or speak ;) ) before I post, there would be Hell to pay. :lol: 

 

Lol I hear you, I texted "paintbrushes" while at Bunnings to my flatmate. It somehow ended up as a mother lover.....  But he worse version......He wanted to know why I called him that, and then when I realised what I had sent, he was even more confused seeing me doubled over in laughter.....

Still no idea how spellchecker got those two confused....

Sorry for the long late reply, been doing it on my phone as I can it has taken me about 3 days to make this post lol

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2017-6-30 at 0:43 AM, Sherapy said:

Psyche, where have you been? I have missed you. Good to see you back. 

I've been to he'll and not quite back...... I'll have to pm you when I work out where my mail is.....

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2017-6-30 at 0:47 AM, FLOMBIE said:

I agree. It is, indeed! icon_beer.gif

Why than you! Made my day that was very nice of you :)

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
On 2017-6-30 at 11:10 PM, Doug1o29 said:

It is amazing how many people say "science says this" or "science says that" but can never offer anything remotely scientific to back up their speculation.

Doug

That sounds like utter nonsense I cannot begin to work out what exactly you are referring to. Science has well proven itself, as such the only stumbling block is yourself in this situation. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
37 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

I've been to he'll and not quite back...... I'll have to pm you when I work out where my mail is.....

Oh no!!!! PM me when you can. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
17 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I've been to he'll and not quite back...... I'll have to pm you when I work out where my mail is.....

Best wishes to you my good friend!!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stubbly_Dooright
20 hours ago, psyche101 said:

But that individual aspect is where it falls apart too, if a grandma told her grandchildren to drink and smoke heavily to attain longevity, she would be speaking from direct experience, and it might bit affect 1 in a hundred validating her claim to those two people. I don't see that different to preaching or even spreading the so called good word. Religion sets up certain ideals that are not compatible and as such many take their own lives as they cannot live up to that standard.

Well, here's the thing, that I think is probably different in how I think you see it, and how I think, you think I see it. 

Wait!  .....................

EDlZuqF.gif

Well, anyways. I know, and you have said this before, you are not the thought police, and don't expect people everywhere to follow one path only. And I think there's a difference to someone following there own path and guidance within that, and them 'preaching' that to someone else. I feel, there's a difference there. I maybe that grandma, but much that I feel my behaviors may help me, teaching that to my grandchildren is something I would probably not do. Unless, it's been something that follows a path with many people, and then I'm still hesitant in 'preaching' it. I'm more talking about each individual depending on it in their own path, not teaching it to others. If, I'm getting what you're saying here. 

Quote

We just do not hear about those cases, but if you look you will find them sorry, I am struggling to post or I would offer a link to some examples. We gloss over these lost lives for the positive claims which I honestly feel are overzealous in nature. 

That's ok, I feel it's unnecessary. Again, I feel, it's not something that needs examples to show others. It's something that guides the individual themselves. I'm not saying it's good for them and for them to spread it. I'm just saying, if it's good for them, then good. :) 

Quote

If it is not repeatable, if it is based in conjecture, we cannot be getting the complete picture, and I think if we did, we might reconsider the method. The drinking smoking grandma might be certain she is helping but she is not, like anti vaxxers who also.spread misinformation often with good intentions. One child might have a better life while hundreds die because of those good intentions. 

Well, yes, I know. And yes, it would be on conjecture. (I, in fact, would argue that fact if someone does that with me.) 

I hope you realize, I'm defending those who depend for their belief for their own guidance, not for expecting others to follow it. Because yes, what's good for the goose is not always good for the gander. 

20 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

Well, this is exactly what I meant when I said, I do see barbarity in varying religious areas. And I'm not talking about one sided individuals and situations, who can't see past that or themselves. In fact, I agree with you. Though, within religions, and beliefs, and such, it's not all that. There are those who do abide by their religion and beliefs, and actually accept others, give their time and selves to others, and encourage others to be themselves, beliefs or lack of them a part of that. I have seen that. I try to be that myself in my religion. 

But look at the nicest Christians, they are rarely devout. They take what they want and dismiss the rest, the more faithful, the worse a society is. It seems to me that this indicates most know there is nothing to it but go with it anyway. IS followers pray several.times a day and they seem to feel that gives them the authority to kill for their God. 

Actually, there have been a few really nice, (nicest yes :yes: ) Christians that happen to be very devout as well. I do see examples of what you are talking about, but I have also seen those that talk the talk and walk the walk. That friend who just wanted everyone to be happy and sees everyone for themselves, happened to be very devout. There was a family, where the husband and wife were devout and really nice. And it wasn't just her who saved herself for him, he saved himself for her. And that kept complimenting each other saying that they themselves don't deserve their better half. And they definitely practiced their religion on a daily basis, in such a giving way. They had really impressed me. :yes:  

I guess, Psyche, I have seen the wide varieties of religious and non-religious, that I can't label them all just one thing or another. 

20 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

(By the way, GAWD I missed you and these synapse-tingling conversations. :tu:  :D )

I miss you guys too big time.

:D  :tu:  :blush: 

20 hours ago, psyche101 said:

I do feel religion is a springboard to megalomania. And that is how and when it falls apart. I honestly feel the psychos like army of God and Westboro are just smaller examples of religion run wild. As religion has lost that power in the West, things have got better. Christians who take the bible with a grain of salt (about the size of the rock of Gibraltar) are without doubt the most pleasant. To me that seems a very small step from atheism. 

I feel that way for some in religion. But, I have also seen that when money is involved. Or something else, that has taken hold in a trendy fashion, and then it's pushed onto others. *shrugs* 

As for the last part of this section of your post, I feel that it's more of a good thing for someone's own point of view of their belief system. I see that my belief doesn't depend on material things, like the bible. But, that's me, and that might be a bit of arrogance for me, I'll be honest. Point is, it could be a lot of things in a good way. 

20 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

And I wanted it to be known, I also feel it's the community as well. (Even for introverts, and I should know, I'm one. :D ) And like the situation of the mall chapel, not all religions have the aspect of my way or screw the highway, it's my way. I see this authority figure in it, yes, but not all of the time. I don't want to change how you feel. I more than respect it, I understand it's how you feel, like how I feel about it too, and yes, some of it is different to your's. :) 

The problem there is that religion claims to be the answer when it is not and many, as we have seen from mr walker in particular, insist it is the belief, and such skewed ideals can misdirection the real helpful quality of community, which means that which can really help others is squandered for promotional purposes, so while a like minded community can help, many miss out in order to champion and recruit people to.an ideal. 

And yes, things like that are there, and those do that. I wonder, how is it that prosetylizers feel their lecturing to be taken seriously, when they behave in a contradictory manner to their beliefs. As for those, like Walker, I ignore them. It's that simple. They have proven over and over again, that consideration to other's feelings, point of view, their situations in life, and their individual physical, behaviors, and other differences, shows they are not practicing what they preach. Plus, there is something that should be considered, that other things that help, and coming from professionals should come first and not someone's belief that makes them think they are invincible and godlike. I don't let those like Walker get to me, because I ignore that, and I know I am confident within myself that I'm doing the right thing. I think, it's just reflecting on what's right and what's wrong and just going :no: to them and separating myself from them. In the end, those who do this, are only hurting themselves. :yes: 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

And I agree one hundred percent of that. And I have seen that countless times, and I think it get's me when I see that a lot. That even makes me wonder at my belief, and understand if it's seen as weird, because I don't put a must of it must be spread on it. I don't preach to others, I want it just for myself. I know, one thing, if it's something that can be proven, then I will feel I would talk about it, and even then in my personal subjective way, not objective. 

I don't begrudge beliefs, but I do the ideal. As one gains more understanding of the sciences it becomes impossible to resolve. It cannot be proven beyond n any physical way because the ideal cannot be resolved with modern understanding. In science that would just be a failed hypothesis, but the emotional attachment to religion offers it a sense of validity that it really does not deserve.

I may need you to explain that further. There is a part of that I don't understand how or what you mean, because of what failed hypothesis you mean within someone's belief. I think I have often stated, that my belief goes under the priority of science and nature and what is the objective truth. And my belief, is the guide, as I have often stated here many times. If I have a hypothesis from my belief towards science, then I would think there's something I have proven within my belief to parallel science. And even then, that's between me and myself. 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

Agreed. :tu: 

Agreed on that as well. :tu:  :) 

:tu:

Quote

Well, to be considerate toward your outlook, I feel bad being all the way up here. I guess the only thing I could offer, other than I am thinking good thoughts for you, is keep attempting to make you laugh any way I can. :wacko: And, hoping that helps. 

My friends are why I am still here today, every bit that makes a day better counts.

I am so thankful for your friends. :yes:  :) Tell, them I'm thankful for their existence in your life. They have my :wub: for being them. 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

And, I knew that. :yes:  

You know, I knew that.................... of you. Right? :blush: 

:) 

Yep, and yeah I realise I get repetitive there but it's a bit like the energy our body produces and holds, and dissipates on death. That knowledge is not refuted, but it clashes wildly with the ideas of body energy surviving death, I get stuck at the point where real world knowledge is challenged by something that simply makes no sense and is not at all supported. Just scratching me head mostly thinking how do we get to that point when we have knowledge that outright refuted it and is not in question by either party?

Well, I can understand not coming to a conclusion of that and it's being a head scratcher. The thing is for me, and this is purely on my own subjective sense, but I'm fine when there's no answer yet. I guess that's my belief and my self-confidence in me. That doesn't mean I will always know the answer later, but that I'm fine with it either way. I think that's weird as much as anyone, but I do feel that way. As for not being questioned by either party, well maybe it should, but if one or both is fine with it as it is, I think that's fine too. 

21 hours ago, psyche101 said:
Quote

I do voice to text, when I do post on my phone, and boy, if I didn't reread what I write (or speak ;) ) before I post, there would be Hell to pay. :lol: 

 

Lol I hear you, I texted "paintbrushes" while at Bunnings to my flatmate. It somehow ended up as a mother lover.....  But he worse version......He wanted to know why I called him that, and then when I realised what I had sent, he was even more confused seeing me doubled over in laughter.....

Still no idea how spellchecker got those two confused....

Sorry for the long late reply, been doing it on my phone as I can it has taken me about 3 days to make this post lol

Oh, the things that result before I correct them, is so hilarious!! :lol: 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101

 

On 2017-6-30 at 5:07 PM, DieChecker said:

I'd say it depends on your definition of the word "Fundamentalist", because I think I'd qualify as a Fundamentalist under many descriptions, but I'm not a Young Earth Creationist, or a Biblical Literalist.

Hey bud how ya been

You cannot be a fundamentalist simply because you do not follow a literal interpretation.

fundamentalist
ˌfʌndəˈmɛnt(ə)lɪst/
noun
  1. 1.
    a person who believes in the strict, literal interpretation of scripture in a religion.
    "religious fundamentalists"

Might be just me, but you seem more an apologist. Your arguments of loose interpretation are of the same nature as that which I hear from Muslim uni students interpreting the Koran as non violent. It seems incredibly unlikely and bias is plainly obvious.

The fundies do take the Bible literally, and that is where we see religion at its worst from terrorism to Ken Ham. If I might be so bold as to lean on the casual friendship (I think of you as a friend) I would simply call you stubborn. I know you have knowledge that counters religious belief and I.know you maintain belief in spite of that knowledge. I find you am anomaly, no good reason to believe at all, yet you insist on it. Perhaps it might be that you are good with debate and it is part of your character, but as much as I respect you, and I do very much, I cannot see you making a good argument in favour of a belief position. It seems to be more of a "what can it hurt" position.

Quote

I have met many people who were the Worst Sort of People, and who were also Religious, but I think it simply is an issue of statistics. If you have a greater number of people being religious, you're going to find a greater number of evil, mean, stupid, ignorant, or intolerant people are also religious. It is simple statistics. I do agree that more poor people, and more "stupid" people are probably religious, but I think that has more to do with Education then with them actually being poor, or ignorant.

Yet in academic circles.We see little to no belief, but people who take the species forward without violence, manipulation or coercion. Westboro is a small chapter with a fundamentalist belief and constantly exhibit disgusting behaviour. From little groups like Westboro to major capitals like Wahabbism, the closer one is to God, the more one embraces the worst qualities our species has to.offer.

Quote

I read an article about a gay fellow who became a Conservative Christian and it "saved his life", does the one cancel out the other? Are individual stories relevant?

I do not think anyone can comment on the situation without the full story. Sounds like he liked to shout from the rooftops? How many did he oppress with this new outlook? How many who stood by him through thick and thin did he turn his back on? Many young people have also suicided not being able to resolve belief and a gay nature, for every one who has "seen the light" one has taken a life in vain due to God's bigoted commands.

Quote

Quite likely. I still think you use the tools that already exist. When a better form of Community Building shows up and is time tested, then we can switch over. Till then.....

We have each other, religion clouds that reality.

Quote

Back to work.... 

:tu:

I have a new job, it's brilliant.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.