Theology

by sabastious 136 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  cantleave

  Godrulz you sick idiot, why don't you lock yourself away and whip your genitals? Your god myth would like that.
• 

  thetrueone

  Godrulz hasn't come to the realization that the opposite to knowledge is ignorance.

  The gods of the ancients were ignorant of the world they lived in, stimulating the creation of gods to explain

  their unknowns and there were obviously many.

  Being devout and supportive to ignorance is nothing worthy to be proud and arrogant about Godrulz.
• 

  wobble

  I used to think that Godrulz was someone playing a joke on us, pretending to be an ignorant stupid fundie.

  You know, Outlaw or someone like that, with an outrageous sense of humour.

  But I think the bloke really believes the utter tosh he writes on here.

  May God have mercy on him.
• 

  bohm

  The star light problem has been dealt with by creation scientists.

  if by "dealt with" you mean some brainless twat he could not tell einsteins field equation from a pool of piss has ignored the problem while wearing a tie, then yes.

  If by dealt with you mean discussed intelligent, then no.

  is there nothing so stupid you will not believe it?
• 

  Nickolas

  "given that at least 98 percent of all species on this tiny speck of a planet made only a few hesitant steps “forward” before succumbing to extinction, on what warrant is it proposed that all this massive dying-out and occasional vast life-explosion (as in the Cambrian period) also had as its sole object the presence of ourselves? And isn’t it odd that religion, which continually enjoins an almost masochistic modesty upon us in the face of god, should encourage such an extreme and impossible form of self-centeredness and self-regard? By trying to adjust to the findings that it once tried so viciously to ban and repress, religion has only succeeded in restating the same questions that undermined it in earlier epochs. What kind of designer or creator is so wasteful and capricious and approximate? What kind of designer or creator is so cruel and indifferent? And—most of all—what kind of designer or creator only chooses to “reveal” himself to semi-stupefied peasants in desert regions? I have met some highly intelligent believers, but history has no record of any human being who was remotely qualified to say that he knew or understood the mind of god. Yet this is precisely the qualification which the godly must claim—so modestly and so humbly—to possess. It is time to withdraw our “respect” from such fantastic claims, all of them aimed at the exertion of power over other humans in the real and material world."

  Christopher Hitchens, The Portable Atheist.
• 

  thetrueone

  It is time to withdraw our “respect” from such fantastic claims, all of them aimed at the exertion of power over other humans in the real and material world."

  I like that comment, tells a very valid truth.

  I've just ordered this book by Hitchens, should prove to be interesting.
• 

  Nickolas

  some of the most powerful words written by the man, thetrueone.

  good night.
• 

  godrulz

  The WT writing is pathetic, but Hitchens takes the cake for bad content (at least WT believes in God/Kingdom). Hitchens is a technically good writer/communicator, but should follow his brother's footsteps to Christianity before his soon demise from cancer (many Christians are praying for him, but he is a tuff cookie).
• 

  tec

  I have met some highly intelligent believers, but history has no record of any human being who was remotely qualified to say that he knew or understood the mind of god.

  What qualifies as qualified?

  History has a record of at least one human being who was qualified to say that he knew or understood the mind of God. Christ. Hitchens might not believe that record, but he can't say it doesn't exist.

  If the Bible is God's Word (Jesus considered it as such)

  There was no 'bible' in Jesus' time. Christ, Himself, is the Word of God.

  Peace,

  Tammy
• 

  Nickolas

  What qualifies as qualified?

  Nothing qualifies, Tammy. That is the point.

  History has a record of at least one human being who was qualified to say that he knew or understood the mind of God. Christ. Hitchens might not believe that record, but he can't say it doesn't exist.

  That record was written decades after the events it describes by men who were not eyewitness to them. That record, in short, is hearsay, furthermore inconsistent hearsay, that would not stand up as evidence in any true court of examination. Regardless, even if I was to allow that there was one man who understood the mind of God it does not mean that anyone else does, yet so many claim to. What makes it apparent that they are all wrong is that none of them can agree.

  "in religious discourse we have accorded a particularly privileged status to the documents that narrate the old paradigm. The traditional way of putting this is to say they are 'inspired' or dictated by God and are therefore deemed to be beyond correction.

  There is an inevitable circularity in this argument: we believe the Bible, because it tells us that it is the word of God - and God cannot be wrong." Richard Holloway, former Anglican Primus of Scotland.

  Have you read anything by this man? He is a learned theologian, far more knowledgable about the Bible than anyone on this board. He also has this to say:

  "Theological positivism claims that, through revelation, we are given true and saving information about that reality we call "the supernatural" or "heaven" or "the divine realm" or the "other world". The "truth" bit does not particularly bother me. If you tell me that you know that there is another heavenly reality beyond this one and that you know something about what goes on there, I hope I will have the grace to listen politely and not intrude upon convictions that are clearly important to you.

  If you tell me that unless I also hold these views I cannot be "saved" and that something awful and eternal will happen to me after death, I will be less inclined to listen graciously. Moreover, I will detect in your theology not just your private opinion about unknowable matters, but a kind of religious abuse, a power-play, that is clearly designed to pressurise me into re-arranging my mental furniture so that it can accommodate the essential items you insist on installing there."