Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Yes. We don't want any silly answer. We want correct answers, subject to verification. An honest -- I don't know -- is better than a ludicrous answer.

There are religious discussions. There are science discussions. In the context of a religious discussion -- challenges to Cosmology theory -- and challenges to Evolution theory -- are irrelevant distractions. It is all part of the Fundamentalist World View. We have answers from the Bible. You don't have answers. Fundamentalists are not interested in Physics. Neither are they concerned with Biology. It is all part of defending Genesis. As in -- Where did everything come from? Or -- How did we get here? It's all about defending Genesis. Cosmology is a threat to the Creation Myth of Genesis. So is Evolution. There is no reason to discuss either, when the subjects are Damnation and Hell. Except of course, to distract and deflect.

I'm bored. We have no objective, verifiable information or facts about God. Without such facts I don't believe I don't know I don't care I'm done with arguing, with those who disdain facts. Have a blessed day.

If we are going to talk about Dan's Fundamentalist assumptions -- then we must start with his base assumptions. They are very base. God exists. Not any God. The God of the Bible. God produced the Bible. Let us not quibble about "inspired." Everything in the Bible is true. Everything in the Bible is literal. Unless it's metaphor. This is not consistent. Bible history is true and literal. The Bible is proof of everything in the Bible. The Bible is proof of God. Everything that contradicts any of this is wrong and must be corrected. It follows that arguing with Dan about anything, is pointless. He is impervious to facts, reason, logic and external reality. Yes. external reality. He has stated as much. That he is in a "spiritual reality" which is different from our "physical reality". Dan cares about faith and belief. Evidence is a concept beyond him. He does not understand what we mean by "proof". Despite everything, I sometimes butt heads with him. I know better, but I do it anyway. Generally, I end up regretting. I do know it's pointless, but he gets to me. Dan's basic fallback positions are that we must hate God. Or Scripture. Or Christianity. That we are closed minded to "TRUTH". His truth. It comes down to belief and faith. If he believes it, then it's true and he understands it. If he does not believe it, then it's false and he refuses to understand it. Dan's world view is seamless. Both religious and political. There is nothing to be gained by arguing with him about anything. Anything at all. I appreciate your struggle. You think that with reason, facts, evidence and patience -- You can get through to Dan. No. You can't. Nobody can. Actually, it's worse. In Dan's world, there are no distinctions and no nuances. It's either all true or all false. Either we are all right and believe it all -- or we are all wrong and reject God and salvation and everything good and true. Silly me. I actually wasted all that effort trying to explain the distinctions -- to Dan -- between being Atheist and Agnostic. To Dan, that's nothing but different ways to be damned. I'm in no position to tell others to let it go. Still, let it go.

Well done.

This much is true. You don't understand. You are not capable of understanding anything, that you don't agree with. You have been clear that you exist in a separate reality. It is not for me to bring you out of it.

Oh, those Scriptures. I can't take them seriously, long enough, even to argue about them. I've read them through, several times. That ruined them for me. I can't quote chapter and verse the way I used to. It is the best, fastest way, to lose faith. Actually reading them. Cover to cover. No study guides. Just reading them.

That is the joke. Equal parts history, science and pizza. Equal parts. There is no pizza in the Bible. You are over thinking this.

Yes. Just so. A quotation from Aaron Ra: "If you can't show it, then you don't know it." Another quotation from Penn of Penn and Teller: "The Bible is equal parts history, science and pizza".

Thank you. My actual point -- I was wondering why I was giving Dan respect -- while he explained his views on Christianity. He has always twisted and corrupted Atheist and Agnostic explanations. He did so while expressing contempt -- yet I was being respectful to his explanations. It got to me. Even now, look at his latest answer to me. He has doubled down on all of it. Every trifling condescension. Every distortion. The icing on the cake? I have no argument? In my highest ideals, I should be taking the high road. Well, screw it. I lack sainthood.

I'm thinking back to all the times you said things about Atheism and Agnosticism, that were just plain wrong. Did you take my corrections to heart? Or even consider what I was saying? No. You did not. You were smug in your supposed understanding of Atheism and Agnosticism. Also condescending, rude and trifling. Now, you expect a polite, respectful audience -- while you explain Christianity? At least, your version of it. I don't think so.

Yes.

Of course it's child abuse. Of course it's wrong. Alas, there is no practical intervention. In this regard, children are at the mercy of their parents. The same thing happened to them, when they were children. The affliction is passed on. The good news is that demographics are shifting. As the world becomes more secular, recovery becomes easier. As always, we must take the hand that life deals us -- and cope as well as we can.

Yes. Just so. It is the attempt to frighten and intimidate -- that I find irritating. They do try. They don't succeed, but they try.

Years ago, when Billy Graham was Crusading in the Netherlands -- the government had a message for him. He could say anything he wanted, to the adults. He was frightening the children and he had better stop it. They would not tolerate his scaring the children. The message was clear enough. An adult mind was capable of dealing with such threats. Children need protection. As to what Dan is capable of understanding....... No distinctions at all.

In my case, the threat fails. That removes the paranoia element. What matters, to me, is the attempt to threaten -- even though it fails. The threat is childish. Still, the threat is made in earnest. You probably forgot. A few years ago, in response to one of my questions -- you posted a symbol for Atheism. An "admit one person to Hell" ticket. Funny man. I remember. You made the threat yourself, then laughed it off as a joke. A futile threat, no matter how ludicrous it is to me -- made in sincerity -- is still a threat. You would understand that -- if your mind were capable of making distinctions.

Defining the Gods

More Polytheist Thought

A Polytheist on Mutual Respect

Ten kinds of Theism. It's good to have options.

Uh-huh. There is a distinction to be made, between an intended threat -- or an attempted threat -- and a perceived threat. Since such distinctions are beyond your ability to understand, I will leave it at that.

Yes. The threats continue. Misery loves company and they can't stand a free mind. We should be as wretched and full of fear as they are.

I'm going to die. It is the way of all flesh. Life is short and we will all die. In time, even the stars grow cold. What I want is irrelevant. I have made peace with my coming death. Denial is pointless. I think fear is also pointless. So is pretending. I'm alive now -- so I'm living. This is a good day, to be alive.

You have misread me. It is not about being remembered. It is about continuing to exist -- as me. I understand your point about the bigger whole. I don't worry when I scrape myself and lose skin cells. My perspective is still singular. What persists is not "me".