God Creation

[Res Ipsa]

-_-

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... _conflicts

60+ ‘non-objective morality’ wars and conflicts this year alone.

I swear to god Xanax is drunk when he farts out a thought.

- Doc

Sometimes folks get tired of trying to kill each other for every single meal, and figure out that a more cooperative approach makes a whole lot more sense. No God needed to figure that one out.

I’m not sure why this point is lost on the people who are making ajax’s argument.

Yep. A moral code doesn't require objectivity -- it only requires agreement.

[Jersey Girl]

Schmo. I came back fact to show you something you can use (if you ever want to) to oppose folks like I was saying and this one is easy and fast.

I give you, a snapshot of Marjorie Taylor Greene:

1. Love
2. Joy
3. Peace
4. Patience
5. Kindness
6. Goodness
7. Faithfulness
8. Gentleness
9. Self Control

No wait. That's not her at all is it? That's not her even a little, is it?

Okay, gotta dart out again. I'll get back for that other post.

[Some Schmo]

I am rubber, you are glue can be a fun game.

Not really. I'm just applying the same standard to your post as you are applying to mine. I don't think you do have contempt for me. I asked if you felt contempt for me when you posted, because if you could post that without feeling contempt, maybe you could see how I could too.

But here's where I think you're wrong. I don't hold you in contempt. I have never suggested that you are worthy of contempt.

So is it possible that I could feel the same way toward religious people? You seem to think it's all about contempt from me, but you are immune.

I'll say it again another way, just because it hasn't registered the first million ways I've said it: I have contempt for religious ideas, not religious people. If I thought people were unchangeable, why even talk about it at all?

If I say I think someone is weak because they have to rely on their religion, the unspoken message there is that they don't need it, could get along without it, and get stronger, just like someone with weak muscles could get stronger by working out. It's not showing contempt (necessarily) by pointing out what I perceive to be the current state of things. I never said they couldn't get stronger and be more self-reliant; I'm saying they aren't that now, in my opinion, and I've never met anyone who is an exception.

I want the best for everyone. Living a religion is a suboptimal way to live.

I will admit, however, that I do feel contempt for people trying to tell everyone what to do based on nothing but their feelings. But I'm am talking about a specific set of people there, and not making a sweeping generalization about all religious people.

[Some Schmo]

So what I am getting at is that it's not primarily about religious belief at all. It's about hypocritical control freaks who sometimes function under the guise of Christianity.

I hear what you are saying and I appreciate that you've framed it that way, although I don't agree with you all the way. Religion has something to do with it.

But I enjoyed that whole post and we really are, for the most part, in agreement.

And it's only fair that I admit: many of my posts in this thread are expressing an underlying resentment toward religious ideas, or as you put it, I've been popping off some here. There are really decent people who are religious (I've met quite a few). They have no doubt taken some of the collateral damage from the bombs I've been chucking, aimed at the people we agree are acting hypocritically.

[Jersey Girl]

So what I am getting at is that it's not primarily about religious belief at all. It's about hypocritical control freaks who sometimes function under the guise of Christianity.

I hear what you are saying and I appreciate that you've framed it that way, although I don't agree with you all the way. Religion has something to do with it.

The only part that I see religion playing in the chaos is that people are wrongly using it to forward their political agendas and those agendas have nothing to do with improving life for the citizens of this country. I vividly recall, for example, Trump standing on the street holding up the Bible as a prop (upside down?) saying not one word. Was that supposed to mean something? If so, the meaning was lost on me. Now...if he were actually someone who engages Christianity in his own life (walking the walk as the saying goes) and actually highlighted a piece of scripture that held meaning to whatever it was he was trying to do, then I might have not rolled my eyes at the sight of it. But he didn't do that. Because he can't do that. Because he's a liar in every way possible.

But I enjoyed that whole post and we really are, for the most part, in agreement.

We are very much in agreement about the corrosive nature of what is going on in politics and in this country.

And it's only fair that I admit: many of my posts in this thread are expressing an underlying resentment toward religious ideas, or as you put it, I've been popping off some here. There are really decent people who are religious (I've met quite a few). They have no doubt taken some of the collateral damage from the bombs I've been chucking, aimed at the people we agree are acting hypocritically.

Thank you.

I know you were pissed off. My only objection is that I read your post as a wholesale condemnation of every believer on the planet without nuance. Listen to me, Schmo. From a Christian perspective and from a Biblical perspective (I can pull out verse after verse if asked to and I will if asked to.) Christian's in this country should find what politicians and their go along for the ride followers are doing by exploiting the religion, to be completely and utterly offensive and should provide push back on that.

When I say, push back, what I mean is presenting what the Bible actually says about God and what God is reported to have directed and commanded, and what Christ actually taught as reported there, not the twisted way it's being used.

The approach I am talking about is the difference between a shouting mob and the methodical and professional presentations being made by the Jan 6th committee. Which is more effective?

I'm busy today and 2 days past a goal I set to accomplish something and if I don't roll on that NOW, I'm going to get piled on by other commitments and goals. I'm posting on tea breaks. But, I'm going to get to that other post of yours re:indoctrination because I really like that kind of thing. Hopefully, I'll get to posts by others if they are directed to me, but I am putting you top of the list because it was my opposition to your post that started this chain of exchanges.

[Some Schmo]

When I hear things like this, sometimes I turn on a bit, sometimes I turn off a bit.

Obviously, you are one of the first type, of which I never had any doubt.

Well, understanding binary is like anything: learn it in byte-sized pieces.

(I really don't understand this need I have to go down pun-shaped rabbit holes.)

[Some Schmo]

The approach I am talking about is the difference between a shouting mob and the methodical and professional presentations being made by the Jan 6th committee. Which is more effective?

Fair enough. I will say that my opening salvo was part an expression of my thoughts lately mixed with a need to rant, so I appreciate your forgiveness. When I think about what I was doing, it was mostly exorcizing some emotion about our current political landscape. None of the people I was talking about actually post here (check that - none of the people I was talking about are people that I talk to here). Being persuasive wasn't my goal, although obviously I'd love it if someone actually was persuaded. I did have a hazy notion, however, about hoping people would at least consider what I've said.

I mean, yeah, if I was really trying to persuade, I'd be a lot less blunt.

[Some Schmo]

It just occurred to me that this has happened a few times: I go off on a rant, others object, and it starts a conversation, a little rough at first, but then we come to a sort of consensus.

I should really pop off more often. You guys irritate the truth out of me.

[canpakes]

It's not about God. It's about hypocrites USING God to forward their agenda.

So what I am getting at is that it's not primarily about religious belief at all. It's about hypocritical control freaks who sometimes function under the guise of Christianity.

How does one state this without falling into the ‘othering’ trap that Res mentioned?

What does one do when large numbers within your community - or numbers large enough to manipulate the levers of the legislature - are basically meeting the description that you give above?

Everyone has an agenda, and a method - or a weapon, if you will - that they’ll use to advance it, because most folks (as Schmo pointed out) seem to need to find their identity within their beliefs. If their weapon of choice is religion, then how does one reach an armistance? What’s the incentive for the faithful to compromise in any way if they want to stand behind their version of God and proclaim that this God - and by extension, themselves - absolutely cannot be wrong? How does one most effectively counter their need to control?

That's exactly why last evening, I asked canpakes if they could post a series of perhaps 4 quotes made by politicians where they make claims about the God of Christianity. I can pick those apart like nobody's business and that should be the focus of criticisms leveled towards them.

We can start with Greene’s and Boebert’s statements. How will you talk any different opinion into them? And if they effectively can control or eliminate the options for nonbelievers by virtue of their position, then why would they shift position, when what they push for rewards them so well?

It would be like asking Trump to not say the sort of stupid crap that he says to gain the fawning admiration of his Base. With a third of the country (most of them very willing to claim to be on the side of God) always eager to believe any crap statement that he’ll make in order to convince themselves that they’re right rather than challenge their own assumptions, there ends up being no downside for Trump to act differently. Same for Greene and Boebert, except that they operate on a smaller scale. And same for your or my enthusiastic evangelical neighbor or relative, just acting on an even smaller scale. The payoff is the same: never having to challenge one’s own beliefs, and being rewarded by others who similarly want to remain unchallenged and seem ‘right’, regardless of whatever is true.

I have several super-faithful relatives immersed in that reality … wrapping their belief in God with and around a political opinion that requires believing in massive election fraud, believing that Trump was sent by God for them, believing the crap posted on Facebook by self-proclaimed modern prophets like Johnny Enlow, who reel in their faithful audience by feeding them a constant chum of ‘prophecy’ about how any minute now, God is going to magically have Biden arrested and then restore Trump back into his rightful seat of Christian destiny.

I don’t mention this ‘because Trump’; if not for him, there’d likely be another charlatan that would spring up in his place to take the faithful flock under the wing, for the mutual benefit of both parties.

That said … and to come back to the point … what’s the one weird trick to reach into and talk with the rational center that one hopes still exists within these folks (and loved ones) minds?

[Hawkeye]

Yep. A moral code doesn't require objectivity -- it only requires agreement.

Wouldn't you mean that a legal code requires agreement or perhaps just military might? Anyone can make up their own moral code at any time. That doesn't require any agreement. I don't see where we're doing a lot of agreeing these days and why should we given that there is no objective morality, only what is true for each individual based on his experience and biases.

Res Ipsa if there is no objective morality, do you see one side as being right or wrong in a war? Revolutionary war, civil war?