Very true. The stories of good require an evil in order to make the story interesting. Luke vs. Vader, the Doctor vs. the Daleks, Kirk vs. the sexual unavailability of every female of every species, Picard vs. the Borg....
Viviane
JoinedPosts by Viviane
-
44
God & JW can't exist without "evil"
by thedepressedsoul ini was thinking the other day that so far jw's and god have always needed or relied on "evil" to get items done or taken care of.
almost every bible prophecy and jw teaching would not exist without "evil".. let's take the prophecy of jesus for example, it would not have been fulfilled without evil.
when you think about it, he was a needed evil in order for prophecy to be fulfilled.
-
-
-
59
How the human mind processes facts and faith differently
by EdenOne ini found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
-
-
Viviane
^^ you just proved all the points I've made.
Bye.
EdenI can't help it if you complain about "thought police" and then try to tell the forum what other people think and enjoy, things you cannot possibly know and have to right nor reason to assert except to whine while trying to be the thought police.
You've recently twice created threads where you try to tell people what they think, redefine words to mean things they don't and changed what you were trying to say whenever someone tried to figure out exactly what you were trying to say or what your point was.
I've no idea how you think any kind of debate or discussion is possible with that behavior.
-
59
How the human mind processes facts and faith differently
by EdenOne ini found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
-
-
Viviane
I feel sad that these threads inevitably end up derailed and people end up fighting about tangent triffles, ending up being cats fighting inside a bag
As above, so below...
Some take upon themselves the task of being this forum's thought police and they sure take delight in pounding on others for transgressing their flavor of atheism.
I rarely see someone so quickly prove that they themselves are the thing they are complaining about. Usually there are a few filler sentences in there.
clearly this forum has taken a turn towards an agressive strain of atheism, and I don't see myself taking part on it.
It's taken a turn towards "you don't get to speak for me and pretend what you are saying is what I or others think" and towards "if you can't clearly say what you mean, you cannot expect us to pretend to know".
-
94
Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option
by cofty init's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.
i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.
it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.
-
-
Viviane
Viviane - I never thought someone could so misunderstand my point of view. I'm not asking anyone to accept truth from a book.
You write this....
Take for instance just one thought from what Jesus taught. Do onto others as you would have them do unto you. Do not quote me something else that Jesus supposedly said and you disagree with. Consider just this one part. Is it an idea that can help people? Or is it pure garbage?
So, you DO want me to consider what Jesus said. You see value in it, you think others should also. You ARE cherry picking and asking others to agree, as all Christians do. Why do you claim I misunderstood that?
BTW, Jesus taught that, true, but it wasn't his idea. It was around for thousands of years before him. And it's garbage. It's arrogant and makes assumptions about people.
If because of your past you can't accept anything that is contained in the bible that is fine. Go to other spiritual teachings or go to self-help books and yes go cherry pick. Accept what resonates with you and leave the rest.
And here is an example of you arrogantly and pretending to know anything about me, what I need and how I should proceed.
Arrogance combined with ignorance wrapped in the faux cloak of humility seems to be a hallmark of Christianity, fundamentalist or otherwise.
-
94
Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option
by cofty init's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.
i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.
it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.
-
-
Viviane
I'm not sure why "cherry picking" is cast in a negative light.
Because you are asking people to accept "truth" from a book, believe in it and worship invisible people whom you cannot describe in any consistent way and live by those standards as a prerequisite for not dying for all time, being tortured forever or whatever, depending upon which part you cherry pick.
When I go out to my orchard I don't reason "Well I've got to eat every apple out there even if it is filled with insects or I can't eat anything!" Pure foolishness.
It is. It's also not at all the same thing as cherry picking the parts of the Bible you believe and would have us believe.
Does an atheist have to accept every thing that Richard Dawkins has ever said or reject everything he has ever said? Or does he "cherry pick" his statements accepting what makes sense and leaving the rest?
Atheism has nothing to do with accepting Richard Dawkins or what he says.
-
59
How the human mind processes facts and faith differently
by EdenOne ini found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
-
-
Viviane
nic, if you want to see sophistry and obfuscation (s/p) please read viv - I know she isn't going to like this - but I do like to see her in action up to a point especially when she does her pot calling the kettle black thingy. In fact this is how I will reply to her when she appears.
Wow. You went out of your way to 1) accuse of me two things I don't do which means either 1a) you're being intentionally dishonest or 1b) you don't actually know what either of those words means 2) pretend you know I how feel about what you are going to say, in other words, falsely pretend to know things you cannot, to literally be dishonest 3) on a thread I hadn't even commented on.
Quite contrary to your claim, I am am absolutely clear as I can be. I simply cannot make you understand it. And I found your post amusing in it's hamfisted simplicity.
coft, notwithstanding the sophistry and obfuscation in your question, what remarkable solution re Jerusalem does the article in the OP suggest?
Oh, so, it was 1b, she doesn't actually know what the words mean. That's rather sad.
-
59
How the human mind processes facts and faith differently
by EdenOne ini found this very interesting article by t. m. luhrmann in todays edition of the new york times (i've highlighted a few parts i 've found most interesting):.
it seems weird to deny them.. and yet a broad group of scholars is beginning to demonstrate that religious belief and factual belief are indeed different kinds of mental creatures.
people process evidence differently when they think with a factual mind-set rather than with a religious mind-set.
-
-
Viviane
Why is it remarkable that our brains process input from our 5 senses differently from delusions that originated in our heads?
Just as an interesting side point, I was listening to Science Friday on NPR (National Public Radio in the US) and they had on a biologist who pointed out what we've traditionally thought of as our five senses turns out to be way more.
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20141118-how-many-senses-do-you-have
-
94
Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option
by cofty init's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.
i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.
it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.
-
-
Viviane
To be unable to see the unseen does not itself prove that the unseen is a delusion. I recognize the futility of meeting on this subject. I post to hopefully encourage a few Christians who believe in God not to make converts.
But when it is possible to prove that factually the thing unseen cannot exist, as with the god of the bible, then yes, it is a delusion.
Jesus is just, he is moral.
Jesus is drowning is a sea of blood. Blood paid, blood flowing in the streets even as we speak and blood promised.
Jesus is a psychopath.
-
94
Disowning the God of the OT is not an Option
by cofty init's to their credit that many modern christians prefer the jesus of the gospels to the god of the old testament.. ot god is an embarrassment.
i am not going to list his multitude of moral crimes here but my personal favourite is his brilliant idea that a girl who is raped must marry her rapist.
it's not his biggest crime but it demonstrates a disregard for human feelings that is beyond the comprehension of every moral person.
-
-
Viviane
Sheesh, I hate this place. I feel like it's 1980-something and I've been dragged before the JW elders who are dissecting my words all over again. Forget I said anything.
If you truly are a philologist, then you should be absolutely used to this, having written critically peer reviewed papers, a thesis, etc.., and you should have critically reviewed others word. Dissecting words is literally what you would be doing for a living and you should know and value communicating clearly (for instance, differentiating between whether or not you are Jewish ethnically or religiously) and people dissecting words to ensure we are all on the same page with understanding.
So ... what are you complaining about? That someone would try, as you do for a living, to truly understand what you are saying?
It makes me doubt your claims a bit, I must say.
-
56
Question for atheists and nonbelievers
by pressman ini profess to teach the truth to you all and get you to all to think and believe.
believing in christ through his words and not through evil religious cults, like hoj and jw, can and will save you.
do you all realize that every time you are victorious and receive something of value through your hard work and sweat, it was our holy god who blessed you.
-
-
Viviane
God had absolutely nothing to do with that. do not pin that on my god. our God has nothing to do with that. you must know that tragedies can cause many people, such as you, to question God’s goodness.
Really? So .... God really is involved in much, then. Why do you call it God again?