Pete

The UK forum has been asleep for sometime now. Tribal has gone. I blame Facebook. Things ain't the same sadly.

According John Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world. My question is how is it that many evangelical Christians are supporting a genocide of the Palestinian people whilst directly knowing this is not going to be the place of God's kingdom. Surely murder was never in the teachings of Jesus. Even if you see the Palestinians as an enemy Jesus said you should love your enemy. Mass killing and slaughter of thousands of a people was never in Jesus' teachings and not a sign of love.

Jung described psychological conflict as the work of resolving two opposing ideas. He described religion as the need to resolve the fact we have life and the opposing fact we die. This leaves the mind needing to add purpose to the fact we have a temporary existence. He believed religion was born out of that internal struggle. Lang went further in suggesting religion was a socially accepted delusion in order to cope with the conflict of life and death. Marx also described religion as the sigh of the oppressed spirit and the opiate of the people. Opiate suppress the pain of life and makes it's hardships as more acceptable.

Connolly was an atheist. When he was describing the provable he was differing his thoughts from those of faith or belief based reasoning.

I know that Marx described religion as the opiate of the people and the sigh of the oppressed. He dismissed religion as nothing more than the coping mechanism to deal with a cruel world. However James Connolly who got a catholic upbringing said he was not against religion. He just based his reasoning on the provable rather than the unknowable. I kinda like that.

I get enlightenment used as a term for wisdom revealed but that has no support to a plants photosynthesis.

I have no criticism about your views Jonathan. In fact I respect them. It was just the statement "is god light?" It seems we are trying to discuss the characteristics of an unsubstantiated concept that has no physical evidence to prove its existence. We must first prove God before we can describe character. Otherwise it is similar to debating does a vacuum have consciousness.

Is god light. Is god real. What do we really know first hand about god that you were not taught to think. How can we test that god is light?

Genesis makes no sense. The day and night and the vegetation were made before the sun and moon. Without the sun there is no day. it is the rotation of the earth in relationship to the sun that creates a day. Plants need the sun in order to grow but they flourished on the third day and sun was made on the fourth day. This is just poetic nonsense.

That said the Tsar before the revolution was also a butcher who kept the country in poverty and at a pointless losing war with Germany and on it's other border Japan. We all know how he had the people killed in Red Square. Well that was not the only time he sent the troops in to murder whole groups of people. However he was Royalty and a Christian so we never talk about this.

Jonathan said:- Without Christianity, Islam would have taken over the world. Without Islam, Christianity would have taken over the world. Christian vs. Christian holy wars are the stuff of legend. Muslim vs. Muslim holy wars are the stuff of legend. Jewish infighting is also the stuff of legend. Too much to drag out now. The Temple Mount in Jerusalem is the hottest of hot spots. Good luck cooling that down. _----------------------------++------------------------ I would argue with Judaism, paganism and possibly Hinduism Christianity would not of existed. Without Christianity Islam would not of existed. Mohammed 's first wife was an ebonite. One of the many early christian splits that retained Judaism and saw Jesus as the good teacher and definitely not god. Mohammed sort to correct the errors as he saw it of Christianity. They did not follow Paul's teachings and saw it as a pagan heresy. Trouble was Ebonites hated this world and felt the sooner it died the quicker would come god 's kingdom. They therefore did not encourage having children and so their christianity died and was swallowed up by Islam. The progression of Christianity and Islam despite the denials was a developing theme rather than a complete birth into what they are now. As for communism that is a long debate in it'self. After the revolution 17 differing countries tried to invade is. The land owners insisted on ownership and caused mass starvation. Lenin hated Stalin even though Stalin was the Secretary of the party but after Lenin's death Stalin ruled by fear and the revolution was lost and it became a dictatorship. He ran the whole country as one factory and tried to trade with the World but many countries refused to do so. Hence causing a lot of poverty. It was Stalin who was the butcher and not communism. Was he seen as a god? I doubt it. It is more like if you want to live you best be respectful of this guy.

There are three ways to stop a fire. 1/ deprive it of oxygen. 2/ deprive it of fuel. 3/ lower its temperature. Debating highlights the nonsense the religion is founded upon. Even if they are persistent in quoting dogma, the ridiculous nature and lack of foundation of the religion shows through. I guess that is why you have given so many posts to the topic and interesting they are. I note there is no response back to challenge your logic. If they did it again would show up the ridiculousness of having a faith with no logical foundation. Hence you put the fire out.

Having seen how believers behaved under the Trump.regime I do not believe they have any right to question atheist 's moral compass. I do not need a bronze age book to tell me somethings are wrong. You do not have to believe in a god to value the life of another and respect their personal rights as human beings. Most atheists know this. Believers it seems need to be told this from a bronze age book. I question any believer who needs to be told to respect others rather than know this from their own heart.

Not defending one religion or another but Christian's use the book of Hebrews in order to convince Jews of their standpoint. The trouble is the only thing the book of Hebrews convinces them of is how little Paul actually knew about Judaism and how unlikely it is that he was schooled in Judaism as he claims.