omnipotent beings discussion

[MuzztheEagle]

You still going? Confucius say’s... If that’s what you want to believe, then good luck to you.

You're right...What an arrogant so and so thinking that HE has all the answers!
......oh hang on....isn't that what you like to do?

 

[Kevinward777]

You're right...What an arrogant so and so thinking that HE has all the answers!
......oh hang on....isn't that what you like to do?

Mate I believe what I do, and you can believe what you want. You’re the goose who’s been getting all worked up on this thread... why does it even matter to you big shot?

Go back and re-read the posts... the flavour of my post is no different to that which I was responding to. I don’t claim to have all the answers, but I definitely have faith. Something you are unable to get your brain around, so you in turn use this thread to mock people who claim to have it. You’re even arrogant enough to presume what my wife and I should be talking about in family conversations.

You really need to let it go... perhaps a bowl of pasta and a quite moment with the Spaghetti monster might lighten your load.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Mate I believe what I do, and you can believe what you want. You’re the goose who’s been getting all worked up on this thread... why does it even matter to you big shot?

Sorry? Who's getting all worked up?

 

[Kevinward777]

Sorry? Who's getting all worked up?

That was a sneaky little uppercut you landed there.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

That was a sneaky little uppercut you landed there.

You should probably stay down this time

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Here's the thing @Kevinward777 - It really doesn't bother me in the slightest what you (or anyone else) choose to believe or have faith in...
UNLESS....that belief causes harm to other people. This is why I like to have a voice (and even troll others) on the subject. If you want to say that you are right to feel, speak or act a certain way because it is what your belief has shown you then you are wrong
If you want to make a claim that impacts on others then you must provide evidence to properly support that claim - to do so based on belief is an incredibly dangerous idea and one that has led people to do truly terrible things.
Now you might say that; "well, my belief does not cause harm to others though, and I don't accept that (our saviour) Izzy's views are correct" - Except, as soon as you are willing to say, in a public setting, that you believe that Jesus Christ was our one true saviour and God incarnate you insult the beliefs of those who have been taught something else (over half the global population).
My concern with the whole issue has stemmed from the Folau case and the following reaction that religion must be protected and it is the idea of this protection that terrifies me. I would have no issue if people wanted to protect their right to carry out religious meetings, discussions, rituals and cultural traditions. This is something that many governments around the world have attempted and succeeded in doing, it goes against human rights and I wholeheartedly disagree with this idea. But that is not what religious organisations and individuals in Australia are currently fighting for. They are arguing for the right to have their (harmful) views validated on the concept "belief" and nothing more. If this happens then what do we validate? Something as extreme as fundamentalist Muslims would want? As ridiculous as the right to wear a pasta strainer while driving? How about the need to say a prayer for all the world's religions at any public event? Is there really a line that can be drawn to say what should be covered and what not? (by the way I think this is a great question for lawyers to try to answer and legislate $$$$) For me there isn't one but it will create huge divides within communities and do far more harm than good.
If all that is needed to know something is to "believe it" then what is the point in learning and research? How do we become better people and improve our society if we simply believe in the "truths" of the past?

I am sorry if you have felt personally attacked during our debates, it has not been my intention nor do I believe that was what I did. But if you want to offer up your beliefs in a public space and state them as correct then you must be prepared to support those claims with evidence and answer the scrutiny that is then held up to.
(and this is what should have happened to Folau - instead of the court room circus we will get next year, because: Religion )

 

[Kevinward777]

Here's the thing @Kevinward777 - It really doesn't bother me in the slightest what you (or anyone else) choose to believe or have faith in...
UNLESS....that belief causes harm to other people. This is why I like to have a voice (and even troll others) on the subject. If you want to say that you are right to feel, speak or act a certain way because it is what your belief has shown you then you are wrong
If you want to make a claim that impacts on others then you must provide evidence to properly support that claim - to do so based on belief is an incredibly dangerous idea and one that has led people to do truly terrible things.
Now you might say that; "well, my belief does not cause harm to others though, and I don't accept that (our saviour) Izzy's views are correct" - Except, as soon as you are willing to say, in a public setting, that you believe that Jesus Christ was our one true saviour and God incarnate you insult the beliefs of those who have been taught something else (over half the global population).
My concern with the whole issue has stemmed from the Folau case and the following reaction that religion must be protected and it is the idea of this protection that terrifies me. I would have no issue if people wanted to protect their right to carry out religious meetings, discussions, rituals and cultural traditions. This is something that many governments around the world have attempted and succeeded in doing, it goes against human rights and I wholeheartedly disagree with this idea. But that is not what religious organisations and individuals in Australia are currently fighting for. They are arguing for the right to have their (harmful) views validated on the concept "belief" and nothing more. If this happens then what do we validate? Something as extreme as fundamentalist Muslims would want? As ridiculous as the right to wear a pasta strainer while driving? How about the need to say a prayer for all the world's religions at any public event? Is there really a line that can be drawn to say what should be covered and what not? (by the way I think this is a great question for lawyers to try to answer and legislate $$$$) For me there isn't one but it will create huge divides within communities and do far more harm than good.
If all that is needed to know something is to "believe it" then what is the point in learning and research? How do we become better people and improve our society if we simply believe in the "truths" of the past?

I am sorry if you have felt personally attacked during our debates, it has not been my intention nor do I believe that was what I did. But if you want to offer up your beliefs in a public space and state them as correct then you must be prepared to support those claims with evidence and answer the scrutiny that is then held up to.
(and this is what should have happened to Folau - instead of the court room circus we will get next year, because: Religion )

Thank you for taking the time to post what you did. Funnily enough, I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you have written.

I am a believer in Jesus Christ, and nowhere near as smart as I sometimes presume myself to be. I also don’t think that my faith makes me in any way superior to others who don’t share my beliefs.

 

[Woodsie]

.......

 

[Kevinward777]

.......

I’m a theology person myself... I prefer to leave ideology for the political enthusiasts and economic theorists to squabble over.

 

[Woodsie]

I’m a theology person myself... I prefer to leave ideology for the political enthusiasts and economic theorists to squabble over.

I believe you will find by any sensible examination ... that your theology .. is the very definition of an ideology ..

"A religion is an ideology in which one's relationship to the universe is personal and relational rather than material and mechanical. A religion is an organic ideology, as opposed to mechanistic ideology. Religion is a belief system resting on inexplicable ideas."

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Is this the skull of Adam (of 'Adam and Eve' fame)?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science...n-ethiopia-fills-human-evolution-gap/11444130

 

[Woodsie]

Is this the skull of Adam (of 'Adam and Eve' fame)?
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science...n-ethiopia-fills-human-evolution-gap/11444130

They are still searching the surrounds for evidence of an apple tree .... they have also stated that to be conclusive they will need to find the rib cage to see if any are missing ...

 

[Kevinward777]

I believe you will find by any sensible examination ... that your theology .. is the very definition of an ideology ..

"A religion is an ideology in which one's relationship to the universe is personal and relational rather than material and mechanical. A religion is an organic ideology, as opposed to mechanistic ideology. Religion is a belief system resting on inexplicable ideas."

The last sentence in the above quote indicates this definition was penned by an ideologist does it not?

What do you expect to read?

When I went to Math class in high school, I knew that the teacher wasn’t going to start defining algebra as modern history.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Not sure whether to post this here or the Netflix thread?
Classic Christians
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...d-omens-christian-neil-gaiman-terry-pratchett

I'm also really enjoying the show:

But it is (partly) from the mind of Terry Pratchett so it won't be for everyone

'... it's one thing saying you've got the best god, but sayin' it's the only real one is a bit of cheek, in my opinion.'
'The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.'

 

[Woodsie]

The last sentence in the above quote indicates this definition was penned by an ideologist does it not?

What do you expect to read?

When I went to Math class in high school, I knew that the teacher wasn’t going to start defining algebra as modern history.

By this response it is clear that you didn't understand a word of my previous post .... so to assist you I thought we should go back a step further and define what an "ideology" is .... I hope this helps you ...

"ideological. ... Ideological is an adjective that describes political, cultural, or religious beliefs. An ideology is a body of ideas, and those who agree with the main idea of something take an ideological stand to support it."

 

[Kevinward777]

By this response it is clear that you didn't understand a word of my previous post .... so to assist you I thought we should go back a step further and define what an "ideology" is .... I hope this helps you ...

"ideological. ... Ideological is an adjective that describes political, cultural, or religious beliefs. An ideology is a body of ideas, and those who agree with the main idea of something take an ideological stand to support it."

Gotcha...

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Good luck @Woodsie

 

[MuzztheEagle]

OK @Kevinward777
You think I'm too childish to have a proper debate about religion - can't help but make things personal, post childish memes etc.
Then bring it on - let's go another round or two . If I resort to any such tactics then by all means you can claim a moral victory.

Here are some starting points for you:
You follow an organized religion, it may not have a specific name but both the old and new testaments were compiled by religions organizations. By rejecting the idea of modern existing organized religions you are simply cherry picking parts of these religions that suit your own ideas and rejecting those which don't.
With no evidence to support their beliefs, religions should have no right to impose their views on others. As an example we can show that children who are exposed significant amounts of alcohol may suffer from developmental disorders. This can be carried out by scientific studies and is supported by the majority of data which exists, although specific levels at which damage is caused is somewhat debated. As a result of this study we can regulate control of substance to children to protect them from potential damage.
On the other (religious) side we have the idea that homosexuality is a sin and will earn you eternal damnation from the creator. This cannot be tested (other than by having a relationship and dying) and is based purely on belief of the opinions of those in the past. There is no consensus from studies or experts relationship and mental health fields that quality of life is any less in a homosexual relationship. Yet this belief is not only something that should be protected but should be taken into consideration when dictating the legal status of people's relationships? What's more children are made to feel like there is something wrong and unnatural with them and even put into harmful reprogramming courses to correct their thinking, when homosexual are observed in non-human species. This is but one example of religions need to dictate it's own ideas onto not only it's own communities but all people within a society. It is wrong, and should not be justified.
These unjustified ideals harm people and are a cause of inequality, something you would probably claim that Jesus stood for. IMO they must be removed from our society. Yet you choose to preach the importance of belief and then cherry pick your chosen beliefs from the texts of organized religions that clearly discriminate against others. What if someone else choses to adopt beliefs from the same texts which discriminate against others and then act out on those beliefs? Are those acts of faith equally valid and deserving of protection?

 

[Kevinward777]

OK @Kevinward777
You think I'm too childish to have a proper debate about religion - can't help but make things personal, post childish memes etc.
Then bring it on - let's go another round or two . If I resort to any such tactics then by all means you can claim a moral victory.

Here are some starting points for you:
You follow an organized religion, it may not have a specific name but both the old and new testaments were compiled by religions organizations. By rejecting the idea of modern existing organized religions you are simply cherry picking parts of these religions that suit your own ideas and rejecting those which don't.
With no evidence to support their beliefs, religions should have no right to impose their views on others. As an example we can show that children who are exposed significant amounts of alcohol may suffer from developmental disorders. This can be carried out by scientific studies and is supported by the majority of data which exists, although specific levels at which damage is caused is somewhat debated. As a result of this study we can regulate control of substance to children to protect them from potential damage.
On the other (religious) side we have the idea that homosexuality is a sin and will earn you eternal damnation from the creator. This cannot be tested (other than by having a relationship and dying) and is based purely on belief of the opinions of those in the past. There is no consensus from studies or experts relationship and mental health fields that quality of life is any less in a homosexual relationship. Yet this belief is not only something that should be protected but should be taken into consideration when dictating the legal status of people's relationships? What's more children are made to feel like there is something wrong and unnatural with them and even put into harmful reprogramming courses to correct their thinking, when homosexual are observed in non-human species. This is but one example of religions need to dictate it's own ideas onto not only it's own communities but all people within a society. It is wrong, and should not be justified.
These unjustified ideals harm people and are a cause of inequality, something you would probably claim that Jesus stood for. IMO they must be removed from our society. Yet you choose to preach the importance of belief and then cherry pick your chosen beliefs from the texts of organized religions that clearly discriminate against others. What if someone else choses to adopt beliefs from the same texts which discriminate against others and then act out on those beliefs? Are those acts of faith equally valid and deserving of protection?

Dear Muzz- the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and again while expecting a different result, and I don’t expect anything to change or be gained by engaging in this discussion. It’s the very reason why I have ignored this stuff for the past couple of months.

From your multitude of posts regarding the subject, I already know you presume that anyone who professes to have a faith in Jesus is a bigoted, uneducated, mentally sick, hateful individual, and nothing I write is going to make a shred of difference. I will continue to believe what I believe... and you can do the same.

I wish you well.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Dear Muzz- the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and again while expecting a different result. I don’t expect anything to change or be gained by engaging in this discussion. It’s the very reason why I have ignored this stuff for the past couple of months.

From your multitude of posts regarding the subject, I already know you presume that anyone who professes to have a faith in Jesus is a bigoted, ignorant, uneducated, mentally sick, hate filled individual, and nothing I write is going to make a shred of difference. I will continue to believe what I believe... and you can do the same.

I wish you well.

No mate, I don't believe that of those inflicted with the curse that is religion, quite the opposite. But you called me out as not being able to have a rational argument without acting like a child. Not only did you do that but you just called me insane, most likely in an effort to avoid the same result that you usually do
Don't want me to call you out - then don't act like you have any sort of moral high ground.