people first

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 8/22/2016 at 0:05 PM, mererdog said:

No. And please note that no one said anything about God having needs except in order to attack the notion. It is a simple strawman.

My understanding is that putting God first means putting God's desires and commands (or at least assumed desires and commands) first.

One example would be someone who is starving but does not steal food because they believe God forbids stealing. In that sense, putting God first is basically just putting principle before expedience, which is something I try to do. Another example would be professing to be a Christian when doing so can get you killed. In that sense, it is a matter of having the courage of one's convictions- which I have trouble seeing as a flaw, in and of itself.

Jealousy is all about being needful.

"I am the Lord your God.  You will have no other gods before me, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God ......."

 

[mererdog]

15 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Jealousy is all about being needful.

Jealousy is about want, not need. Specifically, it is about wanting what someone else has. Still a strawman.

[cuchulain]

On 8/22/2016 at 3:05 PM, mererdog said:

The problem with that is that what we think is coming after life is part of what shapes what we think qualifies as a better now- not only for ourselves, but for others. After all, if you are weighing temporary pains versus eternal torments, it may seem way more important to keep a man from sinning than to keep him from starving. Similarly, a man who worries about how he will be remembered might see a life without heroic risk as unworthy, while a man concerned he will never see his wife again after death may be averse to any risk to his life. And how many people can never be happy unless they think that, long after they have died, the children they raised will be happy?

 

Think is the key word in that segment, for me.  They don't know, and so would rather work on an uncertainty than a certainty.  That is, they believe the afterlife requires them to behave a certain way now, whereas they know that people have needs in the here and now that they could help to fulfill, or help people to learn to fulfill on their own.  A person can have any number of beliefs, but no verification of those beliefs.  I think it is more logical to act on what one knows, which is the here and now rather than the afterlife.

[cuchulain]

On 8/23/2016 at 9:52 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

The Atheists of my acquaintance are already inclined to charity and good works.  Why assume otherwise?

I apologize for painting with the broad brush.  I should not have categorized ALL atheists in that manner, just like we should not categorize ALL Christians in a specific manner.  And I certainly wasn't specifying the atheists of your acquaintance.  My bad choice of wording, sorry.  What I meant was certain atheists use their time to bash others, instead of doing good works that they profess Christians should be doing.  

[mererdog]

3 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

I think it is more logical to act on what one knows, which is the here and now rather than the afterlife.

It is illogical to act as if you don't believe what you believe. It is illogical to want others to do so. We are not creatures of pure logic, and it is illogical to expect us to act as if we are.

[cuchulain]

Then we have a simple difference of opinion, friend.  

[Dan56]

On 8/23/2016 at 9:52 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

The Atheists of my acquaintance are already inclined to charity and good works.  Why assume otherwise?

 

Sounds biblical... Pretty much what Christ taught.., A case of accepting the message while disavowing the messenger?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I apologize for painting with the broad brush.  I should not have categorized ALL atheists in that manner, just like we should not categorize ALL Christians in a specific manner.  And I certainly wasn't specifying the atheists of your acquaintance.  My bad choice of wording, sorry.  What I meant was certain atheists use their time to bash others, instead of doing good works that they profess Christians should be doing.  

No harm done.  We can do a little hair splitting.  Atheism is a simple lack of belief.  I think the word you had in mind was anti-theists.  Very different.  It's the antitheists  that bash and flame.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

Sounds biblical... Pretty much what Christ taught.., A case of accepting the message while disavowing the messenger?

Many messengers.  Not one.

It is possible to be good without God.  Sometimes, much easier.

[Gnostic Bishop]

On ‎18‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 2:59 PM, cuchulain said:

I believe we are all strong and weak in different areas, that those with strong minds should use those minds to help their communities, that those with strong backs should use those backs to help, that those with strong leadership ideas should use that, and so forth...to help their communities and each other.  Because some people have weak minds, weak backs, weak leadership abilities, etc... I guess I view it much like a puzzle, where every piece has some part to play, even if that part is merely allowing themselves to be taken care of and increase someone else's empathy.

Well put.

That makes god, the most powerful of all, the worse slacker that there is.

That works for following the first commandment of putting no other name but god's as the greatest slacker of all.

Regards

DL 

[Gnostic Bishop]

On ‎19‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 8:58 AM, mererdog said:

Many people from many different faiths claim there is no difference between putting people first and putting God first.

I think that art is an important resource and that funding from religious groups has made that resource available to a lot of people who would otherwise do without. My grandmother's explanation for why people should dress up for church was that people need to treat some things as special in order to feel that they are special themselves. I always liked that. While things like stained glass and walnut benches may seem frivolous, I think they help pull people out emotional ruts and inspire them to greater personal achievement. Things like the Sistine Chapel may be of no use to a starving man, but I think we need them if we want to build a world where no one starves...

Art is important, I agree, but you have forgotten the Pope that went about chopping the genitals from the many statues in the Vatican.

Seems not all Popes agree that art is important.

Strange though that Popes say that god is in heaven somewhere while their Michelangelo creation painting shows god to in in our right hemisphere of our brains just as Jesus indicated where god resided. 

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

On ‎22‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 0:05 PM, mererdog said:

No. And please note that no one said anything about God having needs except in order to attack the notion. It is a simple strawman.

My understanding is that putting God first means putting God's desires and commands (or at least assumed desires and commands) first.

One example would be someone who is starving but does not steal food because they believe God forbids stealing. In that sense, putting God first is basically just putting principle before expedience, which is something I try to do. Another example would be professing to be a Christian when doing so can get you killed. In that sense, it is a matter of having the courage of one's convictions- which I have trouble seeing as a flaw, in and of itself.

Do you see that quality of holding to ones convictions in all the victims of the various Inquisitions?

Seems that Christians of those days did not like that unless it matched their convictions.

Islam has that same mindset today.

Regards

DL 

[Gnostic Bishop]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

No harm done.  We can do a little hair splitting.  Atheism is a simple lack of belief.  I think the word you had in mind was anti-theists.  Very different.  It's the antitheists  that bash and flame.

Do you think that they have cause to bash and flame?

Regards

DL

[Gnostic Bishop]

On ‎22‎/‎08‎/‎2016 at 4:05 PM, mererdog said:

The problem with that is that what we think is coming after life is part of what shapes what we think qualifies as a better now- not only for ourselves, but for others. After all, if you are weighing temporary pains versus eternal torments, it may seem way more important to keep a man from sinning than to keep him from starving. Similarly, a man who worries about how he will be remembered might see a life without heroic risk as unworthy, while a man concerned he will never see his wife again after death may be averse to any risk to his life. And how many people can never be happy unless they think that, long after they have died, the children they raised will be happy?

 

At the same time, for a god to give infinite punishment for a finite deed would prove that that god was a vile demiurge who knew nothing of justice.

If a theist could see himself in heaven while his friends and family, or even his enemy in that type of hell forever, it would show just how vile and unforgiving he is also. Hardly a man of god that.

Regards

DL

 

[mererdog]

8 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Then we have a simple difference of opinion, friend.  

Whether a thing is logical is a matter of opinion, not fact?

[Gnostic Bishop]

23 minutes ago, mererdog said:

Whether a thing is logical is a matter of opinion, not fact?

A logic trail is something that is followed to a logical conclusion. Such a trail always proves itself as a fact.

That is why religions hate it so much.

Martin Luther ----

“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”

“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

 

Regards

DL

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

15 hours ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

Do you think that they have cause to bash and flame?

Regards

DL

Alas, yes.  Deep cause.

My concern is that the world does not need a new ideological battleground for revenge and counter revenge.  It is too easy to imagine a new anti-religion movement, when belief in God is regarded as a contagious mental pathology.  I can imagine such a movement as State ideology.  This would be an awful development.

Simple Atheism is no threat to anybody.  Anti-theism is, by it's nature, reactive.  The harder that believers push religion on the unwilling -- the more the unwilling and other disbelievers will push back.  "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."  It is the believers who are fueling and generating Anti-Theism.  Such is the blindness of "faith."

Note please, that I make a strong distinction between non-belief and dis-belief.  Non-belief is Atheism.  A simple lack of belief.  Disbelief is what the Anti-Theists have.  It is a distinction that the faithful continue to get seriously wrong.

As a further clarification, I prefer the use of "Agnostic" as a self label.  It is a fine nuance, but I like it.  People are willing to kill because they "believe."  Others are willing to kill because they "disbelieve."  I never heard of anybody killing because "they didn't know."  Agnosticism is about "not Knowing."  It sidesteps the issue of "belief."  It is possible to have a rational discussion about what we "know."  About "belief," not so much.

 

 

[Gnostic Bishop]

3 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Alas, yes.  Deep cause.

My concern is that the world does not need a new ideological battleground for revenge and counter revenge.  It is too easy to imagine a new anti-religion movement, when belief in God is regarded as a contagious mental pathology.  I can imagine such a movement as State ideology.  This would be an awful development.

Simple Atheism is no threat to anybody.  Anti-theism is, by it's nature, reactive.  The harder that believers push religion on the unwilling -- the more the unwilling and other disbelievers will push back.  "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."  It is the believers who are fueling and generating Anti-Theism.  Such is the blindness of "faith."

Note please, that I make a strong distinction between non-belief and dis-belief.  Non-belief is Atheism.  A simple lack of belief.  Disbelief is what the Anti-Theists have.  It is a distinction that the faithful continue to get seriously wrong.

As a further clarification, I prefer the use of "Agnostic" as a self label.  It is a fine nuance, but I like it.  People are willing to kill because they "believe."  Others are willing to kill because they "disbelieve."  I never heard of anybody killing because "they didn't know."  Agnosticism is about "not Knowing."  It sidesteps the issue of "belief."  It is possible to have a rational discussion about what we "know."  About "belief," not so much.

 

 

Wise words and I agree that we have a deep cause (and purpose) in attacking the more vile parts of religions and their misogynous and homophobic gods.

If non-believers ignore those immoral gods and religions, then we forget that for that for evil to grow, all good men need do is nothing.

Good men will attack the immorality of the mainstream religions and try to kill Yahweh and Allah.

Regards

DL

  

 

[cuchulain]

14 hours ago, mererdog said:

Whether a thing is logical is a matter of opinion, not fact?

As much as morality is subjective and not objective, yes.

[cuchulain]

Whether one has cause to bash and flame, and whether one should engage in such activity...there is a difference.  A person may have cause, but should rise above.  That is simply my opinion.