Sign in to follow this  
cuchulain

value of religion

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

For what's its worth, I don't think Christians should pray in public either... Pray aloud in church or among other Christians, sure.. My only point was that Jesus was teaching not to pray as a public spectacle or towards the admiration of men. The purpose of a prayer is what distinguishes it from being sincere of hypocritical.

 

 

How wonderful.  After 2,000 years, you came along and got it right.  Finally, someone understands what Jesus meant.    :rolleyes:

 

Are you ready to tell the cultural dominants to tone it down?  The dominants in the majority, who don't care what anybody else thinks or wants?  What am I supposed to do?  Run purity tests for motivation?     :blink:

 

This is usually where you tell me that I'm intolerant.  And where I refrain from telling you, what you can do with your cultural dominance.     :mellow:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In light of this thread; I feel the need to make a personal faith statement.  In case anybody is confused by my Atheism.  Or Apatheism.

 

God could exist.  I don't have any good reason to think that this is the case, but it's possible.  God could exist.  If I discover a good reason to think that I'm mistaken; I am ready to reconsider.  Something more than the usual tired arguments.  Yet again.  I am so tired of the same arguments.  Usually stated as though for the first time.  Scripture is not proof.  I am looking for objective, verifiable facts.  Until then, I have no reason to care. 

 

Respect for my position -- and me -- is another matter.  I care a great deal about respect.  It is God that I don't care about.

 

Any questions?  Good.  End of speech.

 

Thank you for your time.

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/1/2019 at 5:54 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

How wonderful.  After 2,000 years, you came along and got it right.  Finally, someone understands what Jesus meant.

 

I may have misunderstood your original post, it sounded like you were saying Christians shouldn't pray aloud but go into a closet. But it did occur to me that Christ never prayed among
unbelievers. He didn't pray with gentiles or ask Pilate to join him in prayer, he only prayed with believers as did the apostles. So we may actually be on the same page for once, I don't think Congress should open a session with prayer, graduation ceremonies shouldn't include prayer, or any other public event. That would be force feeding a belief down the throats of a captive audience. So I see your point of cultural dominance on that subject.

 

On 3/1/2019 at 6:13 PM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

God could exist.  If I discover a good reason to think that I'm mistaken; I am ready to reconsider.  Something more than the usual tired arguments.  Yet again.  I am so tired of the same arguments.  Usually stated as though for the first time.  Scripture is not proof.  I am looking for objective, verifiable facts.  Until then, I have no reason to care. 

 

Man can never prove God, only God himself can do that when and where he pleases. He calls us by faith for a reason, because it requires us to make a choice. If God were proven to exist, no choice would be required to accept what's factually known. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I may have misunderstood your original post, it sounded like you were saying Christians shouldn't pray aloud but go into a closet. But it did occur to me that Christ never prayed among
unbelievers. He didn't pray with gentiles or ask Pilate to join him in prayer, he only prayed with believers as did the apostles. So we may actually be on the same page for once,
 
1.  I don't think Congress should open a session with prayer, graduation ceremonies shouldn't include prayer, or any other public event.
 
2.  That would be force feeding a belief down the throats of a captive audience. So I see your point of cultural dominance on that subject.

 

 

Man can never prove God, only God himself can do that when and where he pleases. He calls us by faith for a reason, because it requires us to make a choice. If God were proven to exist, no choice would be required to accept what's factually known. 

 

1.  Yet these activities, and so many more, continue.  Power is intoxicating to a cultural dominant.  Or perhaps, building resentment among others, is part of God's plan for Humanity.

 

You have small cause for rejoicing.  In my mind's eye, I can see the return of Jesus.  He picks up a dollar bill and looks it over.  "Caesar's face is still on the money."  Then he looks more closely.  "In God we trust."  How strange.  Atheists can see that this is wrong.  Fundamentalists seem to like it.

 

2.  Yes.  It is an attempted force feeding.  For all your new found awareness, it continues.  Every day.  Do you imagine that this attempt at force feeding, makes the Christian message any sweeter?  Do you think it helps anyone swallow "the Word"?  No.  It does not.  Still, Fundamentalists seem to enjoy the push.  I've never seen you speak out against it.  You've told me to toughen up.  You've lectured me endlessly on the subject of resentment and intolerance.  Always, you present it as my issue.

 

No.  None of this helped me find my way to Atheism.  But it stiffens the resolve.  When a man has something worth having -- he doesn't have to force it onto others.  They will steal it from him.  Or beg him to share.  

 

 

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

I may have misunderstood your original post, it sounded like you were saying Christians shouldn't pray aloud but go into a closet. But it did occur to me that Christ never prayed among
unbelievers. He didn't pray with gentiles or ask Pilate to join him in prayer, he only prayed with believers as did the apostles. So we may actually be on the same page for once, I don't think Congress should open a session with prayer, graduation ceremonies shouldn't include prayer, or any other public event. That would be force feeding a belief down the throats of a captive audience. So I see your point of cultural dominance on that subject.

 

 

Man can never prove God, only God himself can do that when and where he pleases. He calls us by faith for a reason, because it requires us to make a choice. If God were proven to exist, no choice would be required to accept what's factually known. 

 

 

The God that created my mind -- or gave me my mind -- what ever -- should expect me to use my mind.  Or, God wants me to be an idiot, and is setting me up to be vulnerable to every con job that comes along.  For instance, Mormonism.  A cult founded by a convicted con artist.  Convicted of fraud.  Or Scientology.  Founded by a science fiction writer, who stated loud and clear, that the only way to get really rich was to create a religion.

 

No.  The mind counts for something.  Facts count for something.  Evidence counts for something.  I am responsible for making an intelligent choice.  Not just a choice.  I agree.  with proven facts, I don't need faith.

 

The choices made by others, in such matters, are not my concern.  Neither my friends, nor anybody else, are obligated to agree with me.  I am responsible for my own choices.  I make them based on what I have.

 

What evidence would it take for me to change my mind?  I don't know.  God would know.  It hasn't happened.  At least, not yet.

 

 

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

You have small cause for rejoicing.  In my mind's eye, I can see the return of Jesus.  He picks up a dollar bill and looks it over.  "Caesar's face is still on the money."  Then he looks more closely.  "In God we trust."  How strange.  Atheists can see that this is wrong.  Fundamentalists seem to like it.

 

Christians tend to put their trust in God, they don't have faith in money, its value is only backed by the “full faith and credit” of the government mint. But I see "In God We Trust" on currency as a strange place to advertise a faith, it seems out of place and should be removed. 
 
If I were non-Christian, public prayer wouldn't bother me, I'd respect the majority and tolerate their right to practice what they believe. But your point of 'time & place' is taken, the minority should not be subjected to a constant barrage of what could be construed as Christian salesmanship. Advertisements should be restricted to billboards or other invitations, and not solicited or sponsored via government currency, courts, etc. That's the separation of church & state.

 

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

The God that created my mind -- or gave me my mind -- what ever -- should expect me to use my mind.  Or, God wants me to be an idiot, and is setting me up to be vulnerable to every con job that comes along.  For instance, Mormonism.  A cult founded by a convicted con artist.  Convicted of fraud.  Or Scientology.  Founded by a science fiction writer, who stated loud and clear, that the only way to get really rich was to create a religion.

No.  The mind counts for something.  Facts count for something.  Evidence counts for something.  I am responsible for making an intelligent choice.  Not just a choice.  I agree.  with proven facts, I don't need faith.

 

I agree that God gave us brains to distinguish between hogwash and truth. Its why I also reject Mormonism & Scientology. But no faith is solidified by evidence, our brains are also wired to make decisions when all facts cannot be substantiated. When a couple gets married, they 'trust' the marriage will last, but that notion cannot be factually confirmed, its a decision based in love & intuition, without the need for conscious reasoning.

 

If you drop a pencil and it falls to the floor, you don't need faith to know that repeating that test will yield the same result. No choice or decision is necessary to accept a proven fact. I also believe evidence counts, and I've previously pointed out some that renders verification to what I believe.

Religion aside, can you point out 3 things Jesus said that ain't true? Three things he did that were wrong? Or even 3 things he taught that you adamantly disagree with? My choice is based on the fact that I couldn't point-out one thing. The truth is usually simple and uncomplicated, not a complex equation that requires a superior intellect to decipher. When sufficient evidence is unavailable, the truth can still be recognized. People just tend to over-think what's plain as day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Christians tend to put their trust in God, they don't have faith in money, its value is only backed by the “full faith and credit” of the government mint.  1.   But I see "In God We Trust" on currency as a strange place to advertise a faith, it seems out of place and should be removed. 
 
2.  If I were non-Christian, public prayer wouldn't bother me, I'd respect the majority and tolerate their right to practice what they believe. But your point of 'time & place' is taken, the minority should not be subjected to a constant barrage of what could be construed as Christian salesmanship. Advertisements should be restricted to billboards or other invitations, and not solicited or sponsored via government currency, courts, etc. That's the separation of church & state.

 

 

I agree that God gave us brains to distinguish between hogwash and truth. Its why I also reject Mormonism & Scientology. But no faith is solidified by evidence, our brains are also wired to make decisions when all facts cannot be substantiated.

 

3.  When a couple gets married, they 'trust' the marriage will last, but that notion cannot be factually confirmed, its a decision based in love & intuition, without the need for conscious reasoning.

 

If you drop a pencil and it falls to the floor, you don't need faith to know that repeating that test will yield the same result. No choice or decision is necessary to accept a proven fact. I also believe evidence counts, and I've previously pointed out some that renders verification to what I believe.

4.  Religion aside, can you point out 3 things Jesus said that ain't true? Three things he did that were wrong? Or even 3 things he taught that you adamantly disagree with? My choice is based on the fact that I couldn't point-out one thing. The truth is usually simple and uncomplicated, not a complex equation that requires a superior intellect to decipher. When sufficient evidence is unavailable, the truth can still be recognized. People just tend to over-think what's plain as day.

 

1.  It seems out of place, because it is out of place.  Speaking as an Atheist; I am shocked that Christians would allow this to happen.  At the very least, it lacks piety.  Alright.  It's not a Commandment.  Still, it is consistent with chasing the money changers out of the Temple -- with a whip.  This sort of thing -- mixing God and money -- is supposed to cause outrage in the followers of Jesus.  I'm irritated by it.  You?

 

Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
 
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
 
 
2.  "Public" is not the issue.  Consider what happens at Christmas time with Nativity Scenes.  Churches put up Nativity scenes all the time.  On their property.  In full display of the public.  Do you think I care?  It's a Church.  I expect them to be religious.  They are fully within their rights.  People put similar displays on their private property all the time.  Do you think I care?  People have freedom of speech and expression.  I've helped my friends decorate their trees. 
 
The same display in front of City Hall?  Or in front of the Public Library?  Or in front of a Public School?  No.  That is an unlawful endorsement, by the government, of a particular religion.  It is Unlawful.  It is unethical.  It is an intrusion -- and it is just plain wrong.
 
3.  Marriage is an unfortunate choice to use as your example.  Considering how badly, so many marriages end -- Maybe faith is a miserable way to make an important decision.
 
4.1.  Right off the top of my head?  There was the admonition that what comes out of a man's mouth is what defiles him -- while things that go into his mouth don't matter, because they go into the crapper.
 
Even raccoons know to wash their food before eating.  Hygiene counts.  Food safety counts.  The historic context was the dietary laws of Kashrut.  Thanks to this statement from Jesus -- doctors washing their hands and instruments was set back by centuries.  So was food sanitation.
 
4.2.  There was the unfortunate incident with the fig tree.  The man had a temper.  He cursed an innocent fig tree to death, for not having fruit out of season.  No mere parable.  His disciples were standing there, watching him curse the tree -- then they stood around marveling, at how quickly the tree died.
 
As a stand in for God -- or God in the Flesh -- or the Logos -- It would have been much more impressive, if he had blessed the tree and asked it to bring forth fruit.  Then they could have all had a nice meal of figs.  People would be planting fig trees, in memory and honor of their Lord and Savior.  Talk about lost opportunities.
 
4.3.  It sure would have been nice, if Jesus had outlawed owning people as property.  Another lost opportunity.  During the American Civil War -- Southern preachers were denouncing Lincoln as an Atheist, for wanting to free their slaves.  These preachers used their Bibles to justify slave holding.  Jesus blew another chance to do good.
 
You did ask.
 
:mellow:
 
 
 
 
 
 
Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the truth is usually simple and uncomplicated, how does that lead one to accept a complex mish mash of books that few agree what it actually means?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

If the truth is usually simple and uncomplicated, how does that lead one to accept a complex mish mash of books that few agree what it actually means?

 

 

When you start with faith -- and conclude the facts in advance -- without reason or evidence -- The results are bound to be strange.

 

Consider the world as it is.  Not how it should be, or what we want it to be, but how it actually is.

 

Now, for the sake of argument, pretend that God exists.  What changes?  Nothing.

 

Now, for the sake of argument, pretend that God does not exist.  What changes?  Nothing.

 

I conclude from this, that neither the existence -- nor nonexistence -- of God actually matters.  Which is why I have embraced Apatheism.  Because in the end, it's just a lot of arguing and none of it matters.

 

:grin:

 

History does have an arch.  In the natural course of things, religion becomes mythology.  Reality prevails.  The nice part, is there's nothing we have to do.  The mess that is religion, will untangle by itself.  We need only be patient.

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

1.  It seems out of place, because it is out of place.  Speaking as an Atheist; I am shocked that Christians would allow this to happen.  At the very least, it lacks piety.  Alright.  It's not a Commandment.  Still, it is consistent with chasing the money changers out of the Temple -- with a whip.  This sort of thing -- mixing God and money -- is supposed to cause outrage in the followers of Jesus.  I'm irritated by it.  You?

 

Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
 
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
 
 
2.  "Public" is not the issue.  Consider what happens at Christmas time with Nativity Scenes.  Churches put up Nativity scenes all the time.  On their property.  In full display of the public.  Do you think I care?  It's a Church.  I expect them to be religious.  They are fully within their rights.  People put similar displays on their private property all the time.  Do you think I care?  People have freedom of speech and expression.  I've helped my friends decorate their trees. 
 
The same display in front of City Hall?  Or in front of the Public Library?  Or in front of a Public School?  No.  That is an unlawful endorsement, by the government, of a particular religion.  It is Unlawful.  It is unethical.  It is an intrusion -- and it is just plain wrong.
 
3.  Marriage is an unfortunate choice to use as your example.  Considering how badly, so many marriages end -- Maybe faith is a miserable way to make an important decision.
 
4.1.  Right off the top of my head?  There was the admonition that what comes out of a man's mouth is what defiles him -- while things that go into his mouth don't matter, because they go into the crapper.
 
Even raccoons know to wash their food before eating.  Hygiene counts.  Food safety counts.  The historic context was the dietary laws of Kashrut.  Thanks to this statement from Jesus -- doctors washing their hands and instruments was set back by centuries.  So was food sanitation.
 
4.2.  There was the unfortunate incident with the fig tree.  The man had a temper.  He cursed an innocent fig tree to death, for not having fruit out of season.  No mere parable.  His disciples were standing there, watching him curse the tree -- then they stood around marveling, at how quickly the tree died.
 
(Why was Jesus hungry?  The loaves and fishes man, didn't have anything to multiply for his group?  Some seriously poor planning.)
 
As a stand in for God -- or God in the Flesh -- or the Logos -- It would have been much more impressive, if he had blessed the tree and asked it to bring forth fruit.  Then they could have all had a nice meal of figs.  People would be planting fig trees, in memory and honor of their Lord and Savior.  Talk about lost opportunities.
 
4.3.  It sure would have been nice, if Jesus had outlawed owning people as property.  Another lost opportunity.  During the American Civil War -- Southern preachers were denouncing Lincoln as an Atheist, for wanting to free their slaves.  These preachers used their Bibles to justify slave holding.  Jesus blew another chance to do good.
 
You did ask.
 
:mellow:
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
4.1.  Right off the top of my head?  There was the admonition that what comes out of a man's mouth is what defiles him -- while things that go into his mouth don't matter, because they go into the crapper.
 
Even raccoons know to wash their food before eating.  Hygiene counts.  Food safety counts.  The historic context was the dietary laws of Kashrut.  Thanks to this statement from Jesus -- doctors washing their hands and instruments was set back by centuries.  So was food sanitation.
 
4.2.  There was the unfortunate incident with the fig tree.  The man had a temper.  He cursed an innocent fig tree to death, for not having fruit out of season.  No mere parable.  His disciples were standing there, watching him curse the tree -- then they stood around marveling, at how quickly the tree died.
 
As a stand in for God -- or God in the Flesh -- or the Logos -- It would have been much more impressive, if he had blessed the tree and asked it to bring forth fruit.  Then they could have all had a nice meal of figs.  People would be planting fig trees, in memory and honor of their Lord and Savior.  Talk about lost opportunities.
 
4.3.  It sure would have been nice, if Jesus had outlawed owning people as property.  Another lost opportunity.  During the American Civil War -- Southern preachers were denouncing Lincoln as an Atheist, for wanting to free their slaves.  These preachers used their Bibles to justify slave holding.  Jesus blew another chance to do good.
 
You did ask.

 

Matthew 15:1-20 is the incident where Jesus rebuked the Pharisee's for complaining that his disciples did not engage in their ceremonial hand washing. This was never a law, but their own tradition. Jesus was simply admonishing them for disobeying real laws while clinging to their own "tradition of the elders". The only scripture for hand washing was Exodus 30:17-21, but this only applied to Aaron and Levitical Priest to wash prior to approaching the alter in the tabernacle. Jesus focused on the idea that spiritual uncleanness is of the heart, it does not come from eating without washing the hands.
 
The fig tree represented Israel, Christ was the blessing (Luke 4:16-21), but Israel rejected him, so the tree (Israel) was cursed, not blessed.
 
Slaves were part of the culture, if people were not purchased for servitude, they might die of starvation or be rendered homeless. There were no safeguards back then, so voluntarily selling yourself to survive was a necessity. What might the outcome have been if Christ outlawed a means of survival?
 
We obviously see things differently, but I did ask, so thanks for answering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dan56 said:

[...] Slaves were part of the culture, if people were not purchased for servitude, they might die of starvation or be rendered homeless. There were no safeguards back then, so voluntarily selling yourself to survive was a necessity. What might the outcome have been if Christ outlawed a means of survival? [...]

 

And another great little loophole... after the geocentric astronomy model, the flat earth, Dan actually defends slavery?!? 
 

Sorry Dan, but slavery is simply non defendable. That Jesus (whom I personally hold dearly) did not speak against it does say something about the zeitgeist. But it also shows, quite obviously, that we can conclude there is no proof of god in his actions whatsoever; because god would have been eternally "good" and always "right". But you'll probably jump trough the next loop explaining to us all how god actually changes his mind according to the time instead of letting all people live in freedom all the time... don't bother, Jonathan gave a good example of Jesus being "wrong" and which I "adamantly disagree with".

Edited by RevBogovac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Matthew 15:1-20 is the incident where Jesus rebuked the Pharisee's for complaining that his disciples did not engage in their ceremonial hand washing. This was never a law, but their own tradition. Jesus was simply admonishing them for disobeying real laws while clinging to their own "tradition of the elders". The only scripture for hand washing was Exodus 30:17-21, but this only applied to Aaron and Levitical Priest to wash prior to approaching the alter in the tabernacle. Jesus focused on the idea that spiritual uncleanness is of the heart, it does not come from eating without washing the hands.
 
The fig tree represented Israel, Christ was the blessing (Luke 4:16-21), but Israel rejected him, so the tree (Israel) was cursed, not blessed.
 
Slaves were part of the culture, if people were not purchased for servitude, they might die of starvation or be rendered homeless. There were no safeguards back then, so voluntarily selling yourself to survive was a necessity. What might the outcome have been if Christ outlawed a means of survival?
 
We obviously see things differently, but I did ask, so thanks for answering.

 

The Disciples watched Jesus curse the tree.  The Disciples were amazed at how quickly the tree died.  If this incident was a parable, then Jesus and the Disciples were part of the parable.  That means that none of it actually happened.  That means there was no historic Jesus.

 

The incident itself, as presented in the Gospels, is presented as history.  When history becomes a parable -- because it's convenient -- you have no history.  If you lose the historic Jesus, what do you have?  Philosophy.  The Resurection and all the rest of it, vanishes.

 

You obviously have no understanding of Jewish Law.  Real Law -- not never never land -- changes over time.  It accumulates.  The modifications and additions count as much as the original version.  This is how Law works.  When Jesus proclaimed that no "jot or tittle" would pass away, this is what he had to be talking about.

 

First, your view of Biblical slavery is nothing more than wishful thinking.  The slave owner is allowed to beat his slave, because "he is your property".

 

Second, God, the All Knowing, All Good, Etc. could have prevented the American Civil War by having Jesus forbid slavery.  What?  God didn't know how the American Southern Clergy would understand their Scriptures?  Then God is not All Knowing or is not All Good.  Or God had his reasons for not preventing the American Civil War.  God is "mysterious".  Oh, puke.  What command does Jesus provide?  "Slaves, obey your masters."

 

 

:mellow:

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to the topic of Mixing Money with God.

 

First, we have the Gospels on the subject.

 

 

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
 
No servant can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
 
 
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
 
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables;
 
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?
 
They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.
 
 
 
Now, let's hear from the money.
 
American Currency
 
"In God we trust"
 
Dan, I ask you.  Why is this more of an Atheist issue, than a Christian issue?  I would expect Christians to be way more upset, than Atheists over this one.
 
Let me refresh your memory.  It happened during the Eisenhower administration -- to distinguish Godly Americans, from the Godless Commies.
 
Well?  I'm listening.
 
:mellow:
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

Sorry Dan, but slavery is simply non defendable. That Jesus (whom I personally hold dearly) did not speak against it does say something about the zeitgeist. But it also shows, quite obviously, that we can conclude there is no proof of god in his actions whatsoever; because god would have been eternally "good" and always "right". But you'll probably jump trough the next loop explaining to us all how god actually changes his mind according to the time instead of letting all people live in freedom all the time...

 

Non-defendable? So you would prefer people be homeless, starving, and dying in the streets, because you think selling their services in return for having all their needs met is worse? Having no job or means of support is not a preferable form of freedom. Indentured servitude was a viable means of survival, a necessity of the times and even in some places today.

 

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

The Disciples watched Jesus curse the tree.  The Disciples were amazed at how quickly the tree died.  If this incident was a parable, then Jesus and the Disciples were part of the parable.  That means that none of it actually happened.  That means there was no historic Jesus.

 

The incident itself, as presented in the Gospels, is presented as history.  When history becomes a parable -- because it's convenient -- you have no history.  If you lose the historic Jesus, what do you have?  Philosophy.  The Resurection and all the rest of it, vanishes.

 

You obviously have no understanding of Jewish Law.  Real Law -- not never never land -- changes over time.  It accumulates.  The modifications and additions count as much as the original version.  This is how Law works.  When Jesus proclaimed that no "jot or tittle" would pass away, this is what he had to be talking about.

 

First, your view of Biblical slavery is nothing more than wishful thinking.  The slave owner is allowed to beat his slave, because "he is your property".

 

Second, God, the All Knowing, All Good, Etc. could have prevented the American Civil War by having Jesus forbid slavery.  What?  God didn't know how the American Southern Clergy would understand their Scriptures?  Then God is not All Knowing or is not All Good.  Or God had his reasons for not preventing the American Civil War.  God is "mysterious".  Oh, puke.  What command does Jesus provide?  "Slaves, obey your masters."

 

The incident itself wasn't a parable, the fig tree is a metaphor for Israel and also symbolic of Israel itself. It then becomes a prophecy when Jesus said; "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh" (Matthew 24:32). The parable of the fig tree itself came earlier: "He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down." (Luke 13:6-9)  So Jesus referred the disciples to the parable in order to help them understand the symbology of him having cursed the fig tree.
 
The laws given to Moses did not include symbolic hand washing prior to eating. This was a non-scriptural invention, a religious creation after the traditions of men, not God.  So modifications and additions had nothing to do with what never existed in the first place.
 
The Civil war addressed a form of slavery not endorsed by the bible. Slavery in the bible was not based on ones nationality or skin color, but on economics and social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. There were rules (Deuteronomy 15: 12-15, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 4:1). "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death" (Exodus 21:16). Stealing Africans to sell as slaves was never biblical in the first place. So why would God prevent a Civil war that was fought to uphold what God had instructed?

 

18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:
American Currency
 
"In God we trust"
 
Dan, I ask you.  Why is this more of an Atheist issue, than a Christian issue?  I would expect Christians to be way more upset, than Atheists over this one.

 

I agree, over zealous Christians tend to put God's stamp of approval on things not associated with God. It should read "In Government We Trust". Perhaps some greedy preachers wanted people to render unto them what they proclaimed belong to God :) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

Non-defendable? So you would prefer people be homeless, starving, and dying in the streets, because you think selling their services in return for having all their needs met is worse? Having no job or means of support is not a preferable form of freedom. Indentured servitude was a viable means of survival, a necessity of the times and even in some places today. [...]

 

Yes, non defendable. <- period. You can jump through loop-holes all you want, but slavery is a bad thing. <- another period.

And as Jonathan has pointed out previously; your view of "indentured servitude" is a naive one (at best) and you only use it do defend the non defendable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Non-defendable? So you would prefer people be homeless, starving, and dying in the streets, because you think selling their services in return for having all their needs met is worse? Having no job or means of support is not a preferable form of freedom. Indentured servitude was a viable means of survival, a necessity of the times and even in some places today.

 

 

The incident itself wasn't a parable, the fig tree is a metaphor for Israel and also symbolic of Israel itself. It then becomes a prophecy when Jesus said; "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh" (Matthew 24:32). The parable of the fig tree itself came earlier: "He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down." (Luke 13:6-9)  So Jesus referred the disciples to the parable in order to help them understand the symbology of him having cursed the fig tree.
 
The laws given to Moses did not include symbolic hand washing prior to eating. This was a non-scriptural invention, a religious creation after the traditions of men, not God.  So modifications and additions had nothing to do with what never existed in the first place.
 
The Civil war addressed a form of slavery not endorsed by the bible. Slavery in the bible was not based on ones nationality or skin color, but on economics and social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. There were rules (Deuteronomy 15: 12-15, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 4:1). "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death" (Exodus 21:16). Stealing Africans to sell as slaves was never biblical in the first place. So why would God prevent a Civil war that was fought to uphold what God had instructed?

 

 

I agree, over zealous Christians tend to put God's stamp of approval on things not associated with God. It should read "In Government We Trust". Perhaps some greedy preachers wanted people to render unto them what they proclaimed belong to God :) 

 

 

 

You tell me.  Why would God -- the All Good -- prevent a preventable war?  When all it would have taken was a clear prohibition -- from Jesus -- on owning people as property?  Why would God prevent any war?  

 

But you asked me.  Alright.  Either God is evil -- Or God is a fantasy.  Maybe, an evil fantasy.  That explains why God would not prevent a preventable war.  It also explains how neither God, nor Jesus, could outright forbid slavery in all it's forms and permutations.  

 

:rolleyes:

 

Greedy Preachers?  That's your answer?  Alright.  "By their fruits, you will know them".  The Gospels are bringing forth some nasty fruit.  Maybe, God should prune the tree.  If God existed.  If God existed and cared.

 

:sigh2:

 

 

 

Edited by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Non-defendable? So you would prefer people be homeless, starving, and dying in the streets, because you think selling their services in return for having all their needs met is worse? Having no job or means of support is not a preferable form of freedom. Indentured servitude was a viable means of survival, a necessity of the times and even in some places today.

 

 

The incident itself wasn't a parable, the fig tree is a metaphor for Israel and also symbolic of Israel itself. It then becomes a prophecy when Jesus said; "Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh" (Matthew 24:32). The parable of the fig tree itself came earlier: "He spake also this parable; A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard; and he came and sought fruit thereon, and found none. Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down." (Luke 13:6-9)  So Jesus referred the disciples to the parable in order to help them understand the symbology of him having cursed the fig tree.
 
The laws given to Moses did not include symbolic hand washing prior to eating. This was a non-scriptural invention, a religious creation after the traditions of men, not God.  So modifications and additions had nothing to do with what never existed in the first place.
 
The Civil war addressed a form of slavery not endorsed by the bible. Slavery in the bible was not based on ones nationality or skin color, but on economics and social status. People sold themselves as slaves when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. There were rules (Deuteronomy 15: 12-15, Ephesians 6:9, Colossians 4:1). "Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death" (Exodus 21:16). Stealing Africans to sell as slaves was never biblical in the first place. So why would God prevent a Civil war that was fought to uphold what God had instructed?

 

 

I agree, over zealous Christians tend to put God's stamp of approval on things not associated with God. It should read "In Government We Trust". Perhaps some greedy preachers wanted people to render unto them what they proclaimed belong to God :) 

 

 

 

Just to be clear -- that was the best solution that God could come up with?  God?  The best mind of any and all time?  Seriously?  The best possible solution?  

 

:blink:

 

:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this