God Creation

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10555
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: God Creation

Post by Res Ipsa »

Some Schmo wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 11:44 pm
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.
Yeah, sounds right. :D
he/him
When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, ’tis a Sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10555
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: God Creation

Post by Res Ipsa »

Some Schmo wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 10:34 pm
Res Ipsa wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:03 pm
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.
Res Ipsa wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 8:03 pm
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.
I don't think we're in the same position because of the words we've posted. What you posted showed contempt for POF. I quoted an example to you and asked you to find words of mine that displayed similar contempt. If you can't do that, then that's the difference between us in this situation. I'm reacting to the words you posted. You may have the most innocent of intentions, but all the rest of us get to see is what you post.

I'm not claiming I'm immune to anything. If I chose, I could post something that would clearly communicate contempt of you, regardless of how I actually feel. And if I actually felt contempt toward you, I could express myself in a way that would keep my true feelings hidden. I'm not addressing feelings -- I'm addressing communication. What we communicate when we talk to and about each other. That's what escalates disagreement to the point of violence. Who cares what Tucker Carlson really thinks and feels? What he says displays utter contempt and drives his audience toward viewing their political opponents as existential enemies.

Regardless of what you mean, if you were to say "religion is for the weak," that labels all POF as weak. That would be an expression of contempt for all POF.

I used to take a position like yours -- that I could cleanly separate the person from the belief. I don't take that position anymore because it doesn't match up with human behavior. Isn't the person in this context simply a bunch of beliefs that the person holds about themself? I don't think you can cleanly separate at all a person from the core beliefs that the person holds. There's no clear boundary there. In fact, there may be no actual boundary at all. So, if you were to describe religion as "moronic," I think it's totally unrealistic for a POF not to think you've just called them a moron. The distinction might make you feel better about making the statement, but its a pretty thin distinction.

The only other thing I have is to ask you how you know the difference between doing something based on feelings and doing something based on something else? Isn't it all just signals from something in the brain to something else in the brain. You think you're thinking rationally, but that's just based on something your brain is telling itself. Just like a feeling. And if you think there is a real difference, that's just based on another signal from your brain to itself. Just like a feeling. There's a feeling that you're acting on a feeling and a feeling that you are acting rationally and a feeling that you are basing your actions on reasoning and a feeling that you are just making up after the fact excuses. It's all just the brain signaling to itself.

I'm not arguing that you shouldn't aspire to make rational decisions based on evidence. I'm just saying that there is good reason not to feel contempt for someone else's motives (feeling v. reason) when its all just signaling. They're just like you -- they really can't tell either because its all brain signals.

in my opinion, contempt is based on the arrogant assumption that you aren't like the people you hold in contempt. Except you really can't know that, can you?
he/him
When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, ’tis a Sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 10555
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: God Creation

Post by Res Ipsa »

Hawkeye wrote:
Wed Aug 03, 2022 3:16 am
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?
Good point, Hawkeye. I should have phrased that better. As your previous comment was about the breakdown of society, I should have said something like "societal moral code."

Why should we agree on a common moral code? Well, it would keep us from killing each other for starters. When it comes to wars, I'd say the absence of a common moral code between the sides pushes the sides towards violence rather than restraining it.

What I'm really suggesting is that a moral code, whether its personal or shared, involves not what "is" but what "should be." Not "you can't kill me to take my stuff" but "you shouldn't kill me to take my stuff." And I shouldn't kill you and take your stuff. That how a society can build a moral code without any objective morality.

War is historically a good example. At one time, a "just" war was moral. An "unjust" war was immoral. And there was a lot of effort spent discussing, debating, and making agreements about when a war was "just." There was no objective source -- it was by agreement or custom. There were boundaries on how the fighting occurred, how prisoners were exchanged or paroled, and lots of other stuff. Now, that didn't prevent war. But it was the creation of a kind of morale code simply by agreement.

I don't have a right or wrong, black or white view of the "sides" in those two wars. They're complicated issues set up by even more complicated issues. And trying to make sweeping moral judgements today about events that happened a couple hundred years ago is problematic in terms of presentism. And I suppose its just not an important issue for me. Both wars happened. Both wars had consequences. I can't change what happened two years ago, so I'm not that interested in making those kinds of judgments.

Other wars I may have a more definite opinion on. It depends.
he/him
When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, ’tis a Sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.

Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 7616
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: God Creation

Post by Jersey Girl »

What I think about God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit today is probably more complex than anything I was indoctrinated to as a child or maybe my life is just more complex, but I do think it's a progression of learning throughout the life course just like you learn everything else during your life. Only as an adult you have more to apply it to...if that makes sense.

Did I answer your question at all? :shock:
When people talk about their various gods, do you accept everything they say about them, or do you accept some things and reject others? If god was definitive, would you be able to do that and maintain integrity?
I accept that people talk about various gods that they believe everything they say about them. Do I accept some things and reject others? Well, here's the thing. I'm not entirely sure if what we call is the One God doesn't come to people with other names and doesn't reveal himself/itself to people within the context of their own culture. I don't know everything other religious texts, so I'm probably not equipped to address that. I've had many opportunities in life to listen to what others believe and share what I believe. It's never become contentious. I'm thinking primarily of the first Mormon I ever met and also a Hindu person. I wanted to learn what they believe so I could communicate with them and understand who they were. To be fair, I mainly wanted to find out about Hinduism because my Hindu friend's son had committed suicide so I wanted to try to understand as fully as I could what that meant to her in her belief before I attended the funeral and later so that I could have some basis for conversations when she returned to work so I could more thoughtfully support her.

All of the above also applies to Atheist friends and acquaintances. I know that I have had many opportunities where I could have countered what people have said to me with my own beliefs or testimony as we call it but...I follow a portion of New Testament scripture so I don't usually initiate that conversation rather wait until I am asked. Same thing on this board. Anyway, my interest is learning to understand where people are coming from and what makes them tick so to speak. I want to get in their heads and see the world through their eyes.
If I say, "China is an Asia" and you say, "I don't believe that" then you are clearly denying a certain reality, because we all know where China is located. There's a definitive definition of what and where China is.
That's not how I engage in conversation with people about almost anything, Schmo. I can't relate to that. Wait...I think I can. Okay...if it was where China is located and there was disagreement, I'd probably reply with "Have you examined the map"?

Quick go back to Marjorie Taylor-Greene for a moment because I just thought of something. She purports to be a Christian so far as I know. She's following David Hogg (Parkland School mass shooting survivor) down the sidewalk yelling at him, harassing him, needling him, mocking him--If I recall correctly--which is the first time she ever came on my radar. If I were in that location witnessing it, I would ask to speak to her. I would ask her if she hadn't said she was a Christian (which I think she has) and then I would ask her why she was trying to provoke this trauma survivor...she'd babble her rhetoric and when she was done, I would ask her how that was being kind, peaceful, loving, etc. Then she would babble some more to which I would say "Well, according to the New Testament those are the Fruits of the Spirit in Christianity". Because in terms of Christianity that is Biblical FACT, not the excuses she makes up to get her name in the spotlight.
But if I say something about any god, you are free to agree or disagree, because the definition of god is personal. There isn't a definitive object we can all refer to in order to verify or reject any given proposition about it. Therefore, whenever you accept or reject a proposition about your god, you are simply further defining a god you find acceptable to you.
I would use Biblical Scripture for the definition of the traits of God and Jesus. It would depend on the situation and what is being discussed. That's the exact same way I frame any religious comments I make on this board. I don't say it is fact. I use the terms...according to Biblical scripture or accounts found in the Bible. I also don't say that "I know". I don't know...I believe. Two very different things.
I'm not sure how anyone can deny they made up their own god, except in an attempt to claim it's real. Even if there is a god, everyone's definition is still made up, because the little rascal has apparently chosen to stay hidden.
If the concept of the God of Christianity was made up as you say, it was made up long before I ever took my first breath. I adopted the God of Christianity and Jesus as the Son and after many years of living life, picking things apart, believing and doubting, TONS and TONS of discussion online...about man gods, sacrifices, resurrected beings, Mithraism, dating of the Gospels, the Council at Nicea,...good grief, all of it, and as I examined everything put before me, I didn't see that they matched up all that much to the God of Christianity or Jesus or that you'd have to cherry pick out parts of an account to make it match in order to build a case for it.

NOW...if you put before me the development of god belief in general, I have armchair studied that as well. I more recently mentioned (twice I think) The History of God by Karen Armstrong which I found fully captivating. Read it years ago, it's still on my shelf. I recommend that to anyone believer and non alike. I've read Bart Ehrman and commentary on homosexuality and the Bible which I also found beneficial. Viewed debates on video, all kinds of things.

The thing is is that I only have so much time and so many heartbeats to devote to reading and studying, and a lot has changed about my priorities as I've aged so I've mainly settled on going deep into my personal spiritual journey and letting myself be open to where that leads me and I do it outside of organized religion. I really, really, really wish that I had the educational background of Kish or Aristotle Smith!! I *LOVE* reading their discussions and admire them so much.

But I don't have that. I have some things going for me that I can use to be of service. Call it an instinct or a reaction to need or suffering, I don't know what it is. I know I have it because I can see what my own patterns have been as to what I respond to immediately. I don't have deep knowledge. I have some kind of antenna or whatever. I'm willing to help and keep helping for as long as needed but not to the point of being taken advantage of.

Anyway enough about me. It's only because it's late and I end up thinking about everything. If I didn't answer you on point, get back to me and I'll try again.
Last edited by Jersey Girl on Wed Aug 03, 2022 6:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 7616
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: God Creation

Post by Jersey Girl »

canpakes wrote:
Wed Aug 03, 2022 3:02 am
Jersey Girl wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 9:21 pm
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?
canpakes... I saw the beginning of your post here when it was the most recent post on the thread. I haven't read any other post by RI except his response to Schmo's original post that I objected to. I haven't read any other posts at all except those made by Schmo today so that I could follow up with him.

Give me a minute and I'll get back to your post here.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
canpakes
God
Posts: 7389
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 1:25 am

Re: God Creation

Post by canpakes »

Jersey Girl wrote:
Wed Aug 03, 2022 5:15 am
canpakes... I saw the beginning of your post here when it was the most recent post on the thread. I haven't read any other post by RI except his response to Schmo's original post that I objected to. I haven't read any other posts at all except those made by Schmo today so that I could follow up with him.

Give me a minute and I'll get back to your post here.

No worries, Jersey Girl - I’m mostly just thinking out loud, but I am interested in how you’d respond to those quotes.

My perspective is obviously pretty narrow, so feel free to jump in and point out things that I should be considering, when you’re ready.
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 7616
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: God Creation

Post by Jersey Girl »

You are obviously out to kill me here with this mountain. Okay, I'll try to climb it.
canpakes wrote:
Wed Aug 03, 2022 3:02 am
Jersey Girl wrote:
Tue Aug 02, 2022 9:21 pm
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?
:shock: Like I said, you counter the very foundation of their argument...Christianity and the Bible.
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?
You don't go at large numbers or groups. It's like someone once told me, don't try to move the mountain. Take it apart one rock at a time. Or in this case, one person at a time. The very worst thing that I think you can do (edit, what was I thinkin?) is to get before a group and shout insults at them. Don't appeal to the group, appeal to the parts of the group and put it where others can see it. When you provoke people, you're functioning the same as they are. Provoke thought in people, not people themselves. Throw the rock in the water so it can create a rippling effect--a dialogue not a shouting match.

I could have easily responded to Schmo's post that I objected to by trying to shout him down. I didn't do that. Ultimately, I tried to create a situation where we could actually communicate and I think we ended up doing a pretty good job of it though I did sort of get his attention with a strongly worded post.
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?
There is that mountain again. :shock:

1. If their weapon of choice is religion (make it Christianity because that is what is happening at national level) you (say it again) use the very foundation of their argument--Christianity and the Bible to counter their claims and their approach.

2. I think that it is only via consistently thoughtful discussion that an armistice can be reached. Like I said to Schmo, it's the difference between an angry shouting mob and the Jan 6th Committee presentations. Which is more effective? Which is more likely to achieve an objective?

3. Their version of God, in this case Christianity, should be supportable by Biblical scripture, canpakes. And I don't mean reaching back into the Old Testament and relying on vengeance or and eye for an eye, or whatever because a Christian is a follower of Christ. Period. End of story. I can't rightly reach back into the Old Testament and find all the condemnations of this, that, and the other thing and vow to take an eye for an eye without acknowledging the teachings of Christ as reported in the New Testament where Christ himself countered the eye for an eye retaliation. Where is the kindness? Where is the patience? Where is the love? Where is the self control, the goodness, the peace and all the qualities that the Bible itself states are the fruits of the Spirit, the RESULT of Christian belief? Where is the love thy neighbor as thyself? Where is the let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

Where? Do you see it in them? Do you see it in Marjorie Taylor-Greene? Trump?

If you can't make yourself (this is my opinion) literate in the language they are supposedly speaking (foundational texts) then I say you have no hope whatsoever of dispersing the angry shouting mob.
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?
I have to go find those. I can do it tomorrow, canpakes. I do recall that quote from Boebert would require one to be more literate than I regarding the U.S. Constitution and American history. But the blurring of lines using God as a reference for their own personal will, I can counter that.
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.
:D I have this opened for response and I'm smiling because you said crap, canpakes, and I'm just hoping that I'm reading the quote wraps correctly here and that it really IS you I am smiling at. :lol: Making a list...

1. Trump has been saying stupid crap for his entire adult life. Trump is being aged out of the system due to the fact that people are sick of him and the Jan 6th committee is taking care of him good and proper. He's not falling apart because anyone got in his face and engaged in a shouting match. His standing is coming undone because some people are making a well reasoned and public argument against his truth claims which are being shown to be lies. They are taking him apart one rock at a time.

2. At this point, it doesn't matter what one third of the country thinks or what an over zealous Far Right Evangelical thinks, Trump is going down. He's become an embarrassment to the GOP and even FOX is kicking him aside. Trump is gone. He's history.

3. All that said, if you are worried, if you are pissed off, if you are frustrated, if you feel like you want to beat the living hell out of that one third of the population, then I say get talking. Talk face to face, talk on social media where everyone can see it, (talking here is preaching to the choir at this point though it's a good place to refine one's thoughts), enter into dialogue and take the anger out of it. If we don't take the anger out of it, we're just another angry mob trying to shout down the angry mob. Be the Jan 6th committee, not the shouting angry mob, and arm yourself with facts and evidence, a task which you are far more well equipped to do than I am. Use your strengths, you have the intellect to counter, I have the Biblical knowledge to counter.

I could be wrong about all of the above!
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.
Speak their language, make yourself literate. Where do you see the Fruits of the Spirit in Trump? Where do you see the teachings of Christ in Trump? TEACH them what they claim to believe in. I can well understand why you wouldn't find that palatable, why you think it's a waste of time, why you think they won't listen. I myself, can't see it any other way except to make that strong and decisive effort.
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?
You're asking me? Ever heard a shouting match between a Jersey Girl and Boy? :lol: Just kidding...mostly. Anyway, what's the one weird trick? If I had to throw a dart and hit something real fast I would say...respect.

Respect, a willingness to listen, a willingness (I'm going to do something radical here) to share the truth in love.

Now I am going to catch hell from other Christians here because I just appropriated something from Christianity into a political discussion which is "sharing the truth in love". But I don't see why it doesn't apply.

It's okay. I'm doing the best I can here. All that said, am I frustrated? Yes. Am I deeply concerned? Yes. Do I find myself wishing I could nuke that one third of the country? Yes.

But I am as confident as I can be that exercising wisdom is key and critical right now.
Last edited by Jersey Girl on Wed Aug 03, 2022 6:18 am, edited 4 times in total.
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 7616
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: In my head

Re: God Creation

Post by Jersey Girl »

cp I went back and viewed your original post. You really said crap. :lol:
We only get stronger when we are lifting something that is heavier than what we are used to. ~ KF

Slava Ukraini!
Hawkeye
2nd Counselor
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:37 pm

Re: God Creation

Post by Hawkeye »

What I'm really suggesting is that a moral code, whether its personal or shared, involves not what "is" but what "should be."
For someone like Schmo, he has nothing to persuade other people to agreeing with his view of what the moral code should be other than to shame, belittle, and verbally abuse. He can't appeal to the Bible because he doesn't believe a word of it himself. He can't appeal to the spiritual because he doesn't believe that either. All that exists is right here and right now. So when he calls me selfish why would I choose to work myself to death and bankrupt myself providing for his impoverished people? He would never do the same for my people. As he steadily marches forward chipping away at my constitutional rights and the rights of my posterity, why would I not stand up and fight him? Because he thinks I'm a selfish or a racist? Because he's shamed me into being good tax chattel? I don't even agree with that as a believer, much less as an atheist. Schmo is very lucky that so many people in his host country believe. He owes his life to the religion he disparages.
The best part about this is waiting four years to see how all the crazy apocalyptic predictions made by the fear mongering idiots in Right Wing media turned out to be painfully wrong...Gasoline would hit $10/gallon. Hyperinflation would ensue.
Veritas
User avatar
Some Schmo
God
Posts: 2892
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:21 am

Re: God Creation

Post by Some Schmo »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed Aug 03, 2022 3:53 am
I don't think we're in the same position because of the words we've posted. What you posted showed contempt for POF. I quoted an example to you and asked you to find words of mine that displayed similar contempt. If you can't do that, then that's the difference between us in this situation. I'm reacting to the words you posted. You may have the most innocent of intentions, but all the rest of us get to see is what you post.
You think wildly throwing around the word "bigotry" isn't showing contempt?

But listen, you made good points about the words you've been reading vs. what I intend, and I stand rebuked on that score (especially since I've made the same argument many times).
in my opinion, contempt is based on the arrogant assumption that you aren't like the people you hold in contempt. Except you really can't know that, can you?
Well, I don't think I'm that different. In fact, the majority of my thoughts are based on the premise that we aren't that different.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.

The god idea is popular with desperate people.
Post Reply