Posts by Viviane

44

God & JW can't exist without "evil"

by thedepressedsoul in

i 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.

Viviane

Depressed Soul, Judas was greedy. The act of betrayal was prophesied but Judas was not forced by predestination to fulfill that role.

But someone was. god, the bible, whatever, sealed someone's fate from the moment creation was even thought of by determining someone would betray Jesus. It was an inescapable event. If you are saying god DIDN'T know it would be Judas, then god doesn't know the future. If god DID know, then he basically condemned Judas to killing himself.

god basically planned from the beginning that all of the death, rape, slavery, murder and abortion would occur and the specific death of specific people long before they were even born.

44

God & JW can't exist without "evil"

by thedepressedsoul in

i 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.

Viviane

As for any examples of bulling or killing for pleasure among the animals from what I've read for the most part that occurs when the animals are living in stressful conditions caused by their proximity to and/or mistreatment by people. Also, a degree of self-identification with the behavior can occur meaning we can "read" into the animal's behavior what we see in ourselves. We cannot read the animal's mind though.

I would suggest reading more, then. It happens without those conditions. As to reading animals minds, no one was suggesting that. It's observed behavior. We are animals and share a large set of the same behavior as them.

Surely you're not saying we are the only ones on earth with large brains and opposable thumbs. We're not.

So, did I say that? If I didn't, I find it curious why you would bring up something I never said and then argue against it. It seems quite pointless.

44

God & JW can't exist without "evil"

by thedepressedsoul in

i 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.

Viviane

But people can have evil intent and do bad not just to survive but for the sheer pleasure of doing evil to another man or woman or to animals. In my opinion, there is a big difference between people and the animal kingdom when it comes to evil or doing bad.

Higher order mammals exhibit bully behavior and killing for pleasure also. We ARE members of the animal kingdom. We were just lucky enough to evolve large brains and opposable thumbs.

59

How the human mind processes facts and faith differently

by EdenOne in

i 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 was asking myself why I come here when I don't like playground type abuse and bullying. so i have decided not to come here anymore. Say no to abuse!

No one has abused you. Frankly, it's shameful for you to even pretend that when actual people are actually abused every day.

44

God & JW can't exist without "evil"

by thedepressedsoul in

i 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.

Viviane

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....

59

How the human mind processes facts and faith differently

by EdenOne in

i 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.
Eden

I 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 in

i 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 in

it'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 in

it'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 in

i 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.