A sickening example of religious vampirism

by expatbrit 80 Replies latest jw friends

compactmowse

Dedalus, I believe it is time for a little vocab lesson. Do you know what an atheist is? Well, compare it to a monotheist and and a polytheist. Monotheists say that there is one God (Christians would be in this category). Polytheists say that there are many Gods (such as many Native American religions), and then we come to atheists. Atheists do not believe in God. This is the definition from the world book dictionary: "Atheism: The belief that there is no God." If you think that "our God" is a tyrant, then you are stating that he exists because you can't give a non-existent thing a characteristic )such as being moronic or tyranical). Secondly, if you don't believe in Him, then why should my belief in Him bother you? After all, wouldn't I only be doing harm to myself in believing something YOU believe is false?
Now, in response to your claim that Mr. Lentz's play is NOT about an objective truth - I believe it is. Jason rejected the truth and refused to accept it. Therefore, the fact that Jason did not believe or accept this truth had no affect on the truth still being true. Do you see what I'm saying?
dedalus

My patience is running out, Pipsqueak. But here I go anyway --
Dedalus, I believe it is time for a little vocab lesson.
What great words do you wish to teach me, oh learned one?
Do you know what an atheist is?
Do you? The author of the play says Jason isn't an atheist. You, his biggest defender, say that Jason is an atheist. So far, you're in agreement with me, not your brother in faith.
Well, compare it to a monotheist and and a polytheist. Monotheists say that there is one God (Christians would be in this category). Polytheists say that there are many Gods (such as many Native American religions), and then we come to atheists.
What does this have to do with anything?
Atheists do not believe in God. This is the definition from the world book dictionary: "Atheism: The belief that there is no God."
Of course, you fumble over the distinction between belief and absence of belief. Some atheists make a big deal about that, but never mind -- let's keep it simple for you.
If you think that "our God" is a tyrant, then you are stating that he exists because you can't give a non-existent thing a characteristic )such as being moronic or tyranical).
I think that, in ancient Greek epic poetry, the gods (yeah, gods, because the Greeks were POLYTHEISTIC, see!) are capricious, narcissistic, concupiscent (there's a vocab word for you, ha ha!) and often quite tyrannical. Whoa, look what I did -- I just assigned characteristics to deities we both would agree don't and never existed! How did I do that?
As a fictional character in the Old Testament, your God is a royal fucking asshole. That doesn't mean I think he actually exists. As a fictional character, I don't like him, just like I don't like the cardboard characters in Dick's play. As the son of fundamentalists, this affected me in a very real way -- so it's not just an abstract puzzle for me. I'm invested in the fiction that was real to them, so much so, it's a wonder I don't go on one of those atheist killing sprees.
Secondly, if you don't believe in Him, then why should my belief in Him bother you? After all, wouldn't I only be doing harm to myself in believing something YOU believe is false?
Your belief per se doesn't bother me. Your unsupported religious assertions bother me. The fact that you can express your faith with such blind certainty bothers me. The fact that you blithely pass over the complications of believing in the God you believe in, the fact that you apparently haven't read very carefully the book in which you stake your existence and by which you judge others, bothers me. You haven't once addressed my assertion that the God of the Bible is immature, wrathful, that he ordered his people to rape virgins, kill children, wipe out benevolent tribes. You just putter along, talking about "truth" without even trying to explain what you mean in any substantial way.
Now, in response to your claim that Mr. Lentz's play is NOT about an objective truth - I believe it is.
Believing in a thing does not make it so.
Jason rejected the truth and refused to accept it.
WHAT TRUTH?
Therefore, the fact that Jason did not believe or accept this truth had no affect on the truth still being true. Do you see what I'm saying?
Are you aware of the concept that words are linguistic signs with fixed referents behind them? So what does the word "truth" signify? What is the value of the word "truth"? Is it that God exists? Is it that we must all smother ourselves in the warm wet bosom of Christ? If that is objectively "true," how do you "prove" it?
Of course, I don't expect anything from you. Christians like you never get it. There is a way to understand and express religious faith, even Christian faith, that is to me profoundly moving and significant and impressive, though I can't share in it myself. But you don't get it, and I'm not going to explain it to you, you who should know better.
Dedalus
dickelentz

You once again pose some good questions. I have studied the Bible for about 30 years. I also teach and write bible studies for adults. I have read many other books on philosophy and religion as well as books on evolution and creationism. I also recently spent a lot of time studying the Koran to see what the other third of the world thinks.
Being a rational person, I accept very little that is not logical and reasonable. My conclusion based on the evidence presented is that the existence of God is both rational and logical. Furthermore, Jesus life, death, and resurrection is a matter of historical record. There are some who may dispute the records. But an objective look at the historical documentation of this event gives ample evidence of the historical accuracy of the Bible.
Can I prove any of this to you? No. Jesus once said "even if a man rises from the dead, they will not believe". He did, and most didn't. For those who have already drawn their conclusions, no amount evidence will sway their opinions. But for those who are searching for God and the truth about him, the evidence is there for their examination and their evaluation. God will show himself to those who sincerely seek him.
Josh McDowell (who once was an atheist himself) explores the objectivity of Christianity in several of his books including "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". He does a far better job then I could presenting facts that support the rational basis for belief in God and in the Bible. If you a truly interested in seeing an objective look at the other side, then get the book, read it, and then discuss your conclusions.
Regarding your other questions, I could give you answers. But I think it's time to ask some questions of my own. I believe I have been fair and straightforward with you in responding to your issues even though you may disagree with my answers. Would it not be fair if I asked some questions of my own and got your response?
So, unless you intended this to simply be a one-sided discussion, here's some things I'd like to know about you:
1. If a person could provide evidence that God existed, what evidence would you accept as "proof"?
2. What is your specific complaint about your fundamentalist upbringing? What specifically turned you "off" about Christianity and moved you in the direction of becoming an atheist?
You may respond to my e-mail address if you find you don't wish to share your answers in this forum.
dedalus

You once again pose some good questions.
None of which you have acknowledged, much less attempted to answer.
I have studied the Bible for about 30 years. I also teach and write bible studies for adults. I have read many other books on philosophy and religion as well as books on evolution and creationism. I also recently spent a lot of time studying the Koran to see what the other third of the world thinks.
What is this? Proof that God exists? Material for your resume? Am I supposed to be impressed? I suppose that, with all this knowledge, you should be able to answer at least one of my "good questions."
Being a rational person, I accept very little that is not logical and reasonable.
You accept the existence of a God who is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent, three qualities that cannot coexist in the same deity without raising some pretty serious questions, questions whose "solutions" defy logic and reason and rationality. Since you're so learned, I won't bother expounding on those questions -- of course, even if I did, you wouldn't address them.
My conclusion based on the evidence presented is that the existence of God is both rational and logical.
What evidence? I'm still waiting.
Furthermore, Jesus life, death, and resurrection is a matter of historical record.
I am aware of no objective, credible, third person confirmation of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection as represented in the Bible (and you are, of course, conveniently ignoring everything I've written here about the God of the Old Testament -- or do you consider that massive chunk of the Bible altogether unimportant?). It would have been a simple matter for you to name some of your sources here, but you haven't, even with all that fancy book learning you've been up to.
There are some who may dispute the records.
Some?
But an objective look at the historical documentation of this event gives ample evidence of the historical accuracy of the Bible.
What historical documentation? I'm still waiting for you to name your sources!
Can I prove any of this to you? No.
If you admit you cannot prove any of this, you need to stop using words like "proof" and "facts" and especially "truth." You are permitted to use words like "believe" and "opinion" and especially "faith." But Christians like you seems to prefer the heft of the former set of words -- I wonder why?
Jesus once said "even if a man rises from the dead, they will not believe".
Yeah, that's real nice. Does it prove that God exists? Or that you don't want to have a real discussion if you can't write a warm and fuzzy Christian play about it later?
He did, and most didn't.
You just admitted that you can't prove any of this.
For those who have already drawn their conclusions, no amount evidence will sway their opinions.
This is a classic copout, and I get it every time. "A person convinced against his will if of the same opinion still -- so to hell with you!" Well, just because I've come to my own conclusions does not mean that you'd be wasting your time assembling for me a credible argument, presenting a shred of objective, rational, conclusive evidence. Believe me, I'd like to hear it, especially if I haven't before.
But for those who are searching for God and the truth about him, the evidence is there for their examination and their evaluation.
Let me rephrase this: If you want to believe in God, you will believe in him. That's basically what it boils down to. And there you go throwing around the word "truth" again! Whatever are you referring to? And what's the evidence?
God will show himself to those who sincerely seek him.
Is this your objective, rational "evidence" -- the subjective spiritual experience of the individual? Were is the overwhelming "proof" of this statement? And how does God "show" himself? Warm fuzzies again?
Josh McDowell (who once was an atheist himself) explores the objectivity of Christianity in several of his books including "Evidence that Demands a Verdict". He does a far better job then I could presenting facts that support the rational basis for belief in God and in the Bible. If you a truly interested in seeing an objective look at the other side, then get the book, read it, and then discuss your conclusions.
Christ, I have to read a 750-page book before I can reply to you? You're going to let a third-rate Christian apologist do your dirty work for you? Yes, I'm truly interested in seeing an objective look at the "other side," and perhaps you can start by answering one of my questions that you think is so "good," instead of referring me to shoddy scholarship of the sort I know too well from my own reading. Maybe next you'll want to compare diplomas? Are we playing academic poker now?
To my knowledge, no one ever answered Hume. If we're going to hit the books, let's start there, or at least with someone whose work is more widely acknowledged.
Regarding your other questions, I could give you answers.
You could? Really? Terrific! WHEN
But I think it's time to ask some questions of my own.
But you haven't answered a single one of my own!
I believe I have been fair and straightforward with you in responding to your issues even though you may disagree with my answers.
By your own admission, you haven't answered any of my questions. I don't know what your answers are, so I don't know if I'd disagree with them or not.
Would it not be fair if I asked some questions of my own and got your response?
No, actually it's not fair, since you haven't answered squat!
So, unless you intended this to simply be a one-sided discussion, here's some things I'd like to know about you:
1. If a person could provide evidence that God existed, what evidence would you accept as "proof"?
How about if he "showed himself to me," like you said, or better yet, showed himself to everyone, so I wouldn't think I was delusional? What if he did something to prevent the death of innocent children and the spreading of disease? Or, since this is the Christian God were talking about, what if he publicly apologized for his bad behavior in the Bible? Or all of the above?
But all this is moot. You want me to say that there is no evidence that would satisfy me, thereby excusing yourself from the argument altogether. Which is actually just another example of you covering the fact that you have no rational, objective, reasonable proof, no "truth" in any meaningful sense of the word.
2. What is your specific complaint about your fundamentalist upbringing? What specifically turned you "off" about Christianity and moved you in the direction of becoming an atheist?
If you want an idea about the sort of religion I was exposed to all my life, read around on this forum, and maybe you'll get an idea. Not that it is in any way relevant to our discussion -- if you can even call this a discussion.
You may respond to my e-mail address if you find you don't wish to share your answers in this forum.
Good to know.
Dedalus
Valentine

Excellent thread! thanks expat rem and ded! hugs,T
Todays Affirmation:
The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign that the conspiracy is working.
rem

I'm just sitting back and enjoying this one! :)
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
dickelentz

Your questions are fair. What evidence do I offer of God's existence? And why don't I answer your other questions?
First, I can only give minimal evidence in such a limited forum such as this. That's why I referred you to Josh McDowell's books. He has done a thorough investigation of the rational basis for believing in God and in Christianity. Some of his books are "short". So if 750 pages is too much for you, there are others that give more of a summary of what he discovered. I recommend the longer version for the serious student as it is heavily footnoted and the sources can therefore be independently verified. But the shorter books serve well in a pinch.
Paul Little has also written similar books about the same subject that are less intense but nevertheless informative.
The interesting thing about McDowell is he came at the issue as an atheist trying to disprove the historical accuracy of the Bible. He concluded that the historical evidence overwelmingly proves otherwise. If you are really looking for "proof" and not just arguing a point, these books provide a much more thorough look at the issue than I'm capable of doing in such a limited forum.
Regarding your other questions about God and the Bible, my answers can only be given in the context of what the Bible communicates as a whole. As I teacher, I frequently don't answer questions directly. My method is to develop a context for the issue so that the question can be answered in light of that overall context. My goal is to point people to where they can find answers, not give them all the answers.
This is especially important in biblical studies when more often than not issues are taken "out of context" and end up driving religious values that have very little to do with God's nature or his will for our lives. My goal has always been to drive people towards the "core" teachings of the Bible. Once the "core" is understood, the rest becomes more clear.
I've outlined some of this "core" teaching in my other posts here. It has to do with Jesus and his life, death and resurrection. Everything else in the Bible revolves around this "core" event and either points to it or is driven by it. Without a clear understanding of who Jesus is, why He came to earth, and what He accomplished by dieing on the Cross, the rest of the Bible makes little sense.
Your questions cannot be answered outside of this "core" context. For without this context, my answers would neither make sense nor soften your anger with Christian beliefs.
If you are interested in knowing more about the "core" context of the Bible and how it ties the whole Bible together, I can continue to post on this site and discuss some things I've learned about God and the Bible over my years of study. In the process, the questions you pose can be addressed within the context of the Bible as a whole.
Of course, if you really don't want answers and are just looking for an argument, then perhaps it's better to part our ways.
dedalus

Dickelentz,
My last post to you, since you continue to waste my time.
First of all, 750 pages is not too much for me. I've read many times that in my lifetime on this subject. You know that I can just as easily throw a 750 page book your way and claim that's the only way you'll ever understand anything about what I call "truth." But on this forum, anyway, we tend to hash things out, even if it takes some time to communicate our views.
It's not that I'll never get around to reading MacDowell. I will. It's just that I resent your insinuation that meanwhile, you and I can't have a good discussion about things, because I'm not "up to speed." I am.
Besides, there are certain logic problems (and remember, you were the first to use the word "logical") that don't require "historical evidence" to be worked out. I find the claim of God's omnibenevolence absurd in light of the Biblical record of his actions. Tell me, in what "context" is it okay to wipe out a civilization, kill all of the men and women and boys, and divide the young girls up among "God's people," whom he led into victory? In what "context" is it okay to send bears out to devour young boys for being, well, young boys? And on and on and on.
And by the way, Dick, I have read the Bible as a whole. More than once. I've spent all of my life studying it, for different reasons at different times. So you can take your condescending blather about "context" and shove it up your ass. It's another wimpy copout.
I don't have anger against religious beliefs, even Christian beliefs, per se. Let me reference you to what I wrote above:
There is a way to understand and express religious faith, even Christian faith, that is to me profoundly moving and significant and impressive, though I can't share in it myself.
So don't bring my supposed "anger" into this. You don't understand my feelings on the matter -- not that I've made them, at any point, a factor in my own questions and arguments.
And by the way, Dick, I have read the Bible as a whole. More than once. I've spent all of my life studying it, for different reasons at different times. So you can't take your condescending blather about "context" and shove it up your ass. It's another wimpy copout.
As I teacher, I frequently don't answer questions directly.
I'm not your student, you arrogant prick.
Dedalus
ianao

Uh, dedalus...
And by the way, Dick, I have read the Bible as a whole. More than once. I've spent all of my life studying it, for different reasons at different times. So you can take your condescending blather about "context" and shove it up your ass. It's another wimpy copout.
We got the point.
pandora

I must say that since I "lost" god, I'm a much better person. I live for my life and my family's lives. I enjoy life now, considering god isn't going to incinerate me anytime too soon. I breath a hell of a lot easier now and I take life more seriously. Life is truly pressous now that I have control over it.
-P(J)

A sickening example of religious vampirism

Share this