omnipotent beings discussion

[MuzztheEagle]

By your own account... you are a good person who has lived a good life. So, carry on... don’t worry and live your life as you wish. It’s not my job to determine whether you will or won’t be saved upon death. Just as it isn’t my role to judge whether or not you have lived a good life.

So where were you heading with your questioning? Is there some point I'm missing?

 

[eaglebuzz]

No, that's the very crux of the matter. You want to claim that religion can be used to justify a belief or stance on issues. Yet when I ask for the justification and reasoning behind it I get a bunch of nothing which essentially boils down to either: It's complicated or it would take to long to explain. You aren't willing to discuss these matters, you never have. Everyone who claims they want to discuss this ends up doing exactly the same and when I get frustrated and ask for actual answers you take this as offense and run off. Fine, I don't care, it shows me what is pretty clear about your religion: it is built on insecurity and lies. And when the security of your belief system is threatened you run. So run, but like I said, stop using religion to justify a stance on something. Especially when you will not even attempt to justify it.

I'm a school chaplain, I spend all day having these discussions. I just can't be arsed having them on here with someone who feigns neutrality and open mindedness

 

[MuzztheEagle]

I'm a school chaplain, I spend all day having these discussions. I just can't be arsed having them on here with someone who feigns neutrality and open mindedness

Then I would have thought you would be well prepared for this sort of thing! Or did you just slip that in because you wanted to imply that I'm a child?
Tell me, what do you respond with when students ask you questions about your religion (assuming you're Anglican from previous comment) providing a platform for homophobia?

 

[Kevinward777]

Then I would have thought you would be well prepared for this sort of thing! Or did you just slip that in because you wanted to imply that I'm a child?
Tell me, what do you respond with when students ask you questions about your religion (assuming you're Anglican from previous comment) providing a platform for homophobia?

Anglican is not a religion, you appear to be very confused with this notion. @eaglebuzz would likely identify as Christian. Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist etc are all denominational and they are all in agreement that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

 

[eaglebuzz]

Then I would have thought you would be well prepared for this sort of thing! Or did you just slip that in because you wanted to imply that I'm a child?
Tell me, what do you respond with when students ask you questions about your religion (assuming you're Anglican from previous comment) providing a platform for homophobia?

I am prepared, I also have had enough of these discussions to know where this one ends before it starts. And typing out dozens of 500+ word posts only to "agree to disagree" (best case scenario based on your eisegetical reading of the Bible and triumphalistic tone) is a waste of both our time. Unless you actually do have very little else going on in your life besides getting into protracted debates on Silvertails.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Anglican is not a religion, you appear to be very confused with this notion. @eaglebuzz would likely identify as Christian. Anglican, Presbyterian, Baptist etc are all denominational and they are all in agreement that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

I will retract that statement, my apologies. It was @Eagle thru 'n' thru that made the Anglican comment I was referring to. But I am well aware of what a denomination is. I was referring the Sydney Archbishop's decision to tell homosexuals to leave the church.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

I am prepared, I also have had enough of these discussions to know where this one ends before it starts. And typing out dozens of 500+ word posts only to "agree to disagree" (best case scenario based on your eisegetical reading of the Bible and triumphalistic tone) is a waste of both our time. Unless you actually do have very little else going on in your life besides getting into protracted debates on Silvertails.

But surely would be able to put forward a convincing argument. You seem to be saying that you can only have such an argument if the person is willing to accept it. That's not convincing, that's telling someone what they want to hear!
Like I said, I'm willing to discuss any idea on it's merit and not my bias. Or if you prefer you can give me the justification for religious chaplains in secular schools. Or to go back to my original issue: your justification to protect ideas that encourage homophobia and harm young people. On the last topic I am willing to sit hear for as long as it takes.
Also, I never "agree to disagree" and you should have learnt that by now! Either you have a actual justification or you don't. I may not like it but if it stands up to reason then I will accept it.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

best case scenario based on your eisegetical reading of the Bible and triumphalistic tone

Also, ^^really^^. Did you whip out a thesaurus for those 🙂
Why do you think there are so many different denominations of Christianity if not for people making interpretations that fit their own requirements. Then went on to preach them to others as though they were superior. Do you really think the gospel would have lasted as long as it has if people couldn't reinterpret it's words so that the original hate that it pushed could be glossed over?
I've offered my interpretation of passages. Why don't you do the same and then explain to me why your interpretation is more valid than mine or any other? Or is it just "about the vibe of things"?

 

[eaglebuzz]

But surely would be able to put forward a convincing argument. You seem to be saying that you can only have such an argument if the person is willing to accept it. That's not convincing, that's telling someone what they want to hear!
Like I said, I'm willing to discuss any idea on it's merit and not my bias. Or if you prefer you can give me the justification for religious chaplains in secular schools. Or to go back to my original issue: your justification to protect ideas that encourage homophobia and harm young people. On the last topic I am willing to sit hear for as long as it takes.
Also, I never "agree to disagree" and you should have learnt that by now! Either you have a actual justification or you don't. I may not like it but if it stands up to reason then I will accept it.

I have said I can't be bothered, and that in person is superior. Not that I can't. I could lay out a case for my views and meticulously outline the biblical theology that shows why your superficial interpretation of every single passage you have listed is so wanting, but it would be a wasted effort. Even just making the point to you that this whole conversation would be a waste of time has taken several posts. Can you imagine how much time we would both sink into going back and forth over thousands of words?

 

[eaglebuzz]

Also, ^^really^^. Did you whip out a thesaurus for those 🙂

No, words that describe careful reading and their antitheses have been part of my vocabulary for well over a decade. I would not be surprised if you have had to look them up because your analysis of the Bible and even Christianity as a whole reeks of casual superficiality. I'm ignoring 80% of what you are saying for that reason.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

No, words that describe careful reading and their antitheses have been part of my vocabulary for well over a decade. I would not be surprised if you have had to look them up because your analysis of the Bible and even Christianity as a whole reeks of casual superficiality. I'm ignoring 80% of what you are saying for that reason.

Language is a tool which we use use to convey ideas to one another. Finding big, obscure (theist) words does not make anyone more intelligent it just makes it harder to understand one another. When you do it intentionally it shows that you don't want people to understand your ideas, you just want them to think they are intelligent.

Do you think your 20 years of study helps your cause or mine? I can use very simple concepts of logic and critical thinking to justify my stance on issues and have no problem correct myself when I realise I've made an error. You are claiming that it takes as much as 20 years to truely understand God. I think many Christians would find this offensive. What's more, what sort of all powerful god would setup a system that requires that level of devotion to be understood? Surely there are better things to do than spending a life hunched over a single text (and other works that are just interpretations of that book). Why not write in language that removes the need for interpretation and review that everyone can understand? Wouldn't that be a fairer and more effective way of explaining things to people? And wouldn't it prevent the constant splitting and reform of Christianity and the persecution it causes?

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

...your cause or mine?
...justify my stance ...
... a fairer and more effective way...

I check this thread every so often (bloody off-season) but it's frustrating to say the least.
Muzz to me your last sentence, asking wouldn't that (using plain language) prevent the persecution caused by Christianity? exemplifies the problem you have. Namely, like your various 'opponents' in this thread, you argue from an idealist standpoint.

For you it's all about logic and reasoning, if only this idea could be accepted, or that one exposed, or how can you justify that idea. As I said a few weeks back, in answer to your question (but neatly ignored by you!) that is not how things work.

You'd agree over the last hundred years or so there been changes in community attitudes to divorce? sex before marriage? marriage itself vs simple cohabitation? abortion? homosexuality? the church and sex offenders? Do you think these changes have come about as a result of careful debate within the church or academic or intellectual circles?
I suggest not!

 

[MuzztheEagle]

I check this thread every so often (bloody off-season) but it's frustrating to say the least.
Muzz to me your last sentence, asking wouldn't that (using plain language) prevent the persecution caused by Christianity? exemplifies the problem you have. Namely, like your various 'opponents' in this thread, you argue from an idealist standpoint.

For you it's all about logic and reasoning, if only this idea could be accepted, or that one exposed, or how can you justify that idea. As I said a few weeks back, in answer to your question (but neatly ignored by you!) that is not how things work.

You'd agree over the last hundred years or so there been changes in community attitudes to divorce? sex before marriage? marriage itself vs simple cohabitation? abortion? homosexuality? the church and sex offenders? Do you think these changes have come about as a result of careful debate within the church or academic or intellectual circles?
I suggest not!

Thanks,
In reference to my last sentence, I meant more that the splitting of the church creates persecution between Christians rather than the larger problem of persecution of members of the wider community. E.g. homophobia.
I will also re-iterate that I'm not here to discredit religion or stop religious people from believing in their chosen God. My issue is with those that want to use opinion and bias to justify a stance on something. In particular something that can lead to harm to others.
Apologies if I missed your post. But I am attempting to answer questioning and accusations from 4 different people - one of whom is a prolific spammer. If you want to re-post the original I would be happy to answer it directly but I will answer you rehash now.

For you it's all about logic and reasoning, if only this idea could be accepted, or that one exposed, or how can you justify that idea. As I said a few weeks back, in answer to your question (but neatly ignored by you!) that is not how things work.
How do things work then? Are you suggesting that there is a bigger, emotional connection to things that needs to be taken into consideration? Don't you think that that idea is a flawed one? Can't anything be justified if you apply a personal and subjective reasoning to it? E.G. Black people are different and worry me and I see that as evidence that they are evil. I wouldn't be interested in a homosexual relationship therefor there must be something wrong with it. Conservative politics are best as they fit in with our traditional values. Liberal politics are best as they give me the freedom that all people need. There are plenty of examples I could list here to make that point.

In terms of the evolution of ethics. Why would it matter where the discussions took place? It's the same argument that others have been having around science. If someone was born into a Christian society, where you would be shunned and unable to contribute if you did fit in, do they really have a choice around their religious views? Should we believe that their findings are Christian ones because of this forced or selected indoctrination? I don't think so. Views around logic and ethics pre date Christianity as well as existing in Asian countries where Christianity did not spread. Lets not forget the dark ages! Despite peoples misconceptions of the Romans, the world became a much worse place for individuals when the Christians took over.
I'd argue that changes in community attitudes have come from challenging the status quo and in Western cultures this has been the doctrine of the church. It wasn't the internal discussions of churches that lead to these changes it was a unjustifiable rift between the understanding of right and wrong and the church's dogma. Often this lead to new churches forming, but remember that people knew much less about the world in the past than they do today and it would be a very hard thing to throw away your community, support and purpose in life and even harder to convince others to do the same.
If we are going to back down this rabbit hole again then we get back to the same point that I keep bringing up: Why didn't god make things clear from the start and why didn't he make things clear to all and not just a select few? We have had millennia of exploitation, wars, slavery and inequality.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

I have said I can't be bothered, and that in person is superior. Not that I can't. I could lay out a case for my views and meticulously outline the biblical theology that shows why your superficial interpretation of every single passage you have listed is so wanting, but it would be a wasted effort. Even just making the point to you that this whole conversation would be a waste of time has taken several posts. Can you imagine how much time we would both sink into going back and forth over thousands of words?

Again you back out of the argument without even providing a single point for your justification. I'm not attempting to disprove your God and I know there is nothing I can do to change your mind on the topic. But consider this: I have nothing to lose, if you could convince me that your god is true then you would have saved my soul and enriched my life! It would be far harder to convince you, with many hours (years even!) spent studying and confirming your beliefs and a career based around those ideas! You would have so much more to lose.

But that's not why I am here.

I am here to ask why any of you feel that your religion can be used to take a stance on issues and
why you think that stance deserves to be protected rather than questioned or even ridiculed. Especially when preaching those ideas is known to cause damage to individuals.

If you want to tell me that your religion and your belief is the justification then you will also have to accept that there is a huge amount of doctrine in your and other religions that you may be less willing to take a similar stance on. Slavery? Holy Wars? Ritual Sacrifice? Church ownership of all your wealth (and your body)? An eye for an eye punishments? Genital mutilation?
Which of these would you be willing to defend with the argument of religion?

I've been asking all of you to give me your reasoning as to why Folou's hateful views and preaching deserve respect yet none of you is willing actually state it.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

If you think my thoughts on using logic and reason are as flawed as yours then I am more than happy to test it. Ask me about one of my beliefs and we can discuss. I think you will find I am willing to offer a far more transparent and honest discussion than anything I have encountered when discussing religion here 🙂

 

[Woodsie]

Many years ago I had to choose a religion for my son to attend during the weekly religious studies at primary school .... (the no religion group was not an option at it was supervised by the resident teachers Union rep who spent the hour preaching left wing social engineering ... ) ...

After some research and thought I/we settled on the Bahai Faith classes .... best thing ever ... wonderful teacher and sensible philosophies ....

I have a soft spot for the Bahai's ... I give them a free pass on a lot of things ...

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Many years ago I had to choose a religion for my son to attend during the weekly religious studies at primary school .... (the no religion group was not an option at it was supervised by the resident teachers Union rep who spent the hour preaching left wing social engineering ... ) ...

After some research and thought I/we settled on the Bahai Faith classes .... best thing ever ... wonderful teacher and sensible philosophies ....

I have a soft spot for the Bahai's ... I give them a free pass on a lot of things ...

I had a choice between a number of religions or sitting in the hall doing homework (which felt a lot like detention). I changed classes/denominations quite a few times but pretty soon I realized that fake detention was much better than actual detention 😛

 

[Kevinward777]

But surely would be able to put forward a convincing argument. You seem to be saying that you can only have such an argument if the person is willing to accept it. That's not convincing, that's telling someone what they want to hear!
Like I said, I'm willing to discuss any idea on it's merit and not my bias. Or if you prefer you can give

Thanks,
In reference to my last sentence, I meant more that the splitting of the church creates persecution between Christians rather than the larger problem of persecution of members of the wider community. E.g. homophobia.
I will also re-iterate that I'm not here to discredit religion or stop religious people from believing in their chosen God. My issue is with those that want to use opinion and bias to justify a stance on something. In particular something that can lead to harm to others.
Apologies if I missed your post. But I am attempting to answer questioning and accusations from 4 different people - one of whom is a prolific spammer. If you want to re-post the original I would be happy to answer it directly but I will answer you rehash now.

For you it's all about logic and reasoning, if only this idea could be accepted, or that one exposed, or how can you justify that idea. As I said a few weeks back, in answer to your question (but neatly ignored by you!) that is not how things work.
How do things work then? Are you suggesting that there is a bigger, emotional connection to things that needs to be taken into consideration? Don't you think that that idea is a flawed one? Can't anything be justified if you apply a personal and subjective reasoning to it? E.G. Black people are different and worry me and I see that as evidence that they are evil. I wouldn't be interested in a homosexual relationship therefor there must be something wrong with it. Conservative politics are best as they fit in with our traditional values. Liberal politics are best as they give me the freedom that all people need. There are plenty of examples I could list here to make that point.

In terms of the evolution of ethics. Why would it matter where the discussions took place? It's the same argument that others have been having around science. If someone was born into a Christian society, where you would be shunned and unable to contribute if you did fit in, do they really have a choice around their religious views? Should we believe that their findings are Christian ones because of this forced or selected indoctrination? I don't think so. Views around logic and ethics pre date Christianity as well as existing in Asian countries where Christianity did not spread. Lets not forget the dark ages! Despite peoples misconceptions of the Romans, the world became a much worse place for individuals when the Christians took over.
I'd argue that changes in community attitudes have come from challenging the status quo and in Western cultures this has been the doctrine of the church. It wasn't the internal discussions of churches that lead to these changes it was a unjustifiable rift between the understanding of right and wrong and the church's dogma. Often this lead to new churches forming, but remember that people knew much less about the world in the past than they do today and it would be a very hard thing to throw away your community, support and purpose in life and even harder to convince others to do the same.
If we are going to back down this rabbit hole again then we get back to the same point that I keep bringing up: Why didn't god make things clear from the start and why didn't he make things clear to all and not just a select few? We have had millennia of exploitation, wars, slavery and inequality.

Peoples misconceptions of the Romans LOL. I could do a list of their recorded atrocities but don’t have enough time because it would take all day and then some. But consider the following.
1_The Roman campaigns in Gaul are referred to as an act of genocide whereby over a million people were slaughtered and millions more enslaved.
2-The extermination of the Dacian people.
3-Roman games- including fights to the death, people being fed to starving animals, gang raped, publicly tortured and boiled alive to name but a few.
4-crucifixion en masse including 6000 odd people in a single day.
5-Sex slaves.
6-The slaying of cripples.
7-The use of military to enforce their laws and way of life upon others.

They did give us some nice architecture, introduced sanitation, roads and bureaucracy though. Aaaaaaand they embraced homosexuality. The Nazi’s weren’t so bad either I suppose, their contribution to science was amazing.

@mozgrame supplied you with a vast amount of data which recorded the history of all wars on earth, but you scurried away from that argument real fast when it didn’t fit with your “Holy Wars” propaganda mindset. But to claim the world was better under Roman rule than when the Christians took over is just slaphappy and destroys any credibility that you can discuss the subject of God with a neutral/logic inspired mindset. (Not that I ever believed your claims about having such a stance.)

 

[Kevinward777]

If you think my thoughts on using logic and reason are as flawed as yours then I am more than happy to test it. Ask me about one of my beliefs and we can discuss. I think you will find I am willing to offer a far more transparent and honest discussion than anything I have encountered when discussing religion here 🙂

Furthermore... ANYONE who murders in the name of God ain’t a Christian. ANYONE who abuses a child behind closed doors under the banner of religion ain’t a Christian. ANYONE who sets up a church to fleece people of cash to line their own pockets ain’t a Christian. They may claim to be Christian but I can assure you that it just ain’t so. I can wear a Sea Eagles jersey, but I’ll never be Manly a player.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Peoples misconceptions of the Romans LOL. I could do a list of their recorded atrocities but don’t have enough time because it would take all day and then some. But consider the following.
1_The Roman campaigns in Gaul are referred to as an act of genocide whereby over a million people were slaughtered and millions more enslaved.
2-The extermination of the Dacian people.
3-Roman games- including fights to the death, people being fed to starving animals, gang raped, publicly tortured and boiled alive to name but a few.
4-crucifixion en masse including 6000 odd people in a single day.
5-Sex slaves.
6-The slaying of cripples.
7-The use of military to enforce their laws and way of life upon others.

They did give us some nice architecture, introduced sanitation, roads and bureaucracy though. Aaaaaaand they embraced homosexuality. The Nazi’s weren’t so bad either I suppose, their contribution to science was amazing.

@mozgrame supplied you with a vast amount of data which recorded the history of all wars on earth, but you scurried away from that argument real fast when it didn’t fit with your “Holy Wars” propaganda mindset. But to claim the world was better under Roman rule than when the Christians took over is just slaphappy and destroys any credibility that you can discuss the subject of God with a neutral/logic inspired mindset. (Not that I ever believed your claims about having such a stance.)

Your putting words in my mouth again! Although I will admit that some of my descriptions may have been poorly worded. My point was that not all of Roman society was as bad as many people (in particular Christians) make it out to be.
As per @Mozgrams posts, I mainly ignore them as there is no time to discuss the shear volume that he chooses to post or the multitude of fallacies within them. If you want to discuss one thing at a time then fine....by all means select your favorites of his posts and I will explain to you why they are wrong.

But more importantly your using my posts that were intended to answer the questions of others to dodge the questions I have asked you directly.