God strikes dead liberal Christian

[skepticalbip]

Ok, I am not trying to be mean but what made this lady so great? Wikipedia does not say much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Held_Evans

The best I can figure is that those who think she was great, think so because she had political views closer to their own and criticized those with political views more opposed to theirs. Politics has become a religion for many today. In the not too distant past those in the 'other party' were seen as just being wrong. With the new political religion, they are now seen as evil. For those praising her, she had seen the light and been saved, rejecting the evils of her past belief and condemning those who still hold and practice those evil beliefs.

You clearly didn't know her. She wasn't one to "condemn" others, and did not see her adoption of progressive political projects as a conversion or rejection of her roots.

You missed that I wasn't talking about her but those who praise her... but then she did label those who voted for Trump as hypocrites.

Are you denying that many have taken politics as what could be called religious? Many Republicans see Pelosi and Schiff as evil and many Democrats see Trump and Mitch McConnell as evil.... not just wrong on some issues but as pure evil.

 

[steve_bank]

Natural disasters as god's punishment for gays is an old theme. I remember hearing o from Oral Roberts. And the 'moral majority' guy whose name I forget.

This all makes it hard to maintain a balanced tolerant approach to Christianity.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

Again, it mocked nothing. The Purpose of prayer is not making requests, to fix this or heal this or make it rain or make it stop raining, That people see it that way are foolish, in my view. People die all of the time. Do you want death over thrown? Live forever? More to the point I never understand how some people view prayer as a giant celestial Amazon.com. I'll just order a sunny day for my outdoor event or a complete reversal of heart so diseased it required a quadruple bypass. In Judaism it is in fact prohibited to offer vain prayers. If you find out your wife is pregnant, you cannot ask God to make it a girl or a boy as that has already been decided. When you are waiting for your biopsy results, you can't ask God to make it benign, it already is or is not.

It all depends on how you view it. When there is a mass shooting, it revolts me when politicians offer thoughts and prayers. You are required to take a leap of action, not a leap of faith. Politicians should take action to prevent these things from happening, not sitting around waiting for some heavenly being to the thing they were supposed to do in the first place.

Your claim to be the sole arbiter of what prayer is for contrary to the people doing it is duly noted. I’m sure they’ll be delighted to be corrected on thus point. I’ll get right on it.

Well no, I'm just saying not every religious tradition sees prayer the way evangelicals do. It's so silly to see prayer as people making requests. Suppose a farmer needs rain and his neighbor wants a clear day for his child's wedding. Is God supposed to make it rain only on the crops?

 

[abaddon]

Well no, I'm just saying not every religious tradition sees prayer the way evangelicals do. It's so silly to see prayer as people making requests. Suppose a farmer needs rain and his neighbor wants a clear day for his child's wedding. Is God supposed to make it rain only on the crops?

"New atheism" is a response to evangelicals. Exceptions look like "yeah but my exception should make you see all religion differently" to anti-religion atheists. And your phrasing makes it look like that's what you're saying, because you say "prayer is <my exception>" and "it's silly <that evangelicals don't do things my way>".

To observe what evangelicals do, yes it does seem they want the rain to fall only on the crops.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

Well no, I'm just saying not every religious tradition sees prayer the way evangelicals do. It's so silly to see prayer as people making requests. Suppose a farmer needs rain and his neighbor wants a clear day for his child's wedding. Is God supposed to make it rain only on the crops?

"New atheism" is a response to evangelicals. Exceptions look like "yeah but my exception should make you see all religion differently" to anti-religion atheists. And your phrasing makes it look like that's what you're saying, because you say "prayer is <my exception>" and "it's silly <that evangelicals don't do things my way>".

To observe what evangelicals do, yes it does seem they want the rain to fall only on the crops.

don
Well, if they are silly, it's silly.regardless of what I think. You may think, I'm silly too.and by the way, while I have no scientific evidence, my empirical observation is that it doesn't rain only on the crops. Sick people die despite prayers. I also think most atheists don't really understand religion. Many religious people don't either. My Rabbi often describes Judaism as the religion we agree not to follow.

 

[Rhea]

I also think most atheists don't really understand religion.

I think we understand our family and neighbors quite well.
You come along and tell them they are all doing it wrong according to you. I’m not particularly swayed by your assertions, since they do not predict the behaviors of the people around me.

Many religious people don't either.

But you do?
Maybe they understand their own religions just fine and you’re the one who is wrong, eh?

My Rabbi often describes Judaism as the religion we agree not to follow.

Which is quite silly, when you think about it. If religion were real, that is, based on any reality, then it would not be hard to understand. It would be divinely comprehensible.

It’s all so very... human, isn’t it.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

I think we understand our family and neighbors quite well.
You come along and tell them they are all doing it wrong according to you. I’m not particularly swayed by your assertions, since they do not predict the behaviors of the people around me..


But you do?

Then we disagree. I prefer clarity to agreement. I'm not telling anyone they are doing it wrong. I'm just saying based on empirical evidence prayer does not work. God is not a celestial genie. Say the right prayer, get the right result. If you see it otherwise, that's fine.

Maybe they understand their own religions just fine and you’re the one who is wrong, eh?

When fundamentalists throw out everything they believe in to support Trump, I think they don't understand their own religion at all. But I could be wrong. I don't think so. I think people can quote scripture all day and still not understand their religion.

My Rabbi often describes Judaism as the religion we agree not to follow.

Which is quite silly, when you think about it. If religion were real, that is, based on any reality, then it would not be hard to understand. It would be divinely comprehensible.

It’s all so very... human, isn’t it.

Well, no I think you are wrong. You seem to think God should make it easy for us. If it's difficult, it must be human?. Nothing that come easy is as good as something you work at. If you can't just look at advanced calculus without effort, it's not worth it. I love your cheeky comments

 

[steve_bank]

We understand religion all too well.

One of the basic theist retorts is 'you atheists just don't get it'.

We get

It makes people feel good
Horrendous things are done in the name of religion and god
Religion is responsible for some of the worse oppression in history through today.

On the plus side

It gives people answers to perennial questions.
Aids in personal lives.
Provides community, common rituals, and social glue.
Provides a common moral context.



To me it is simple. Religion gives you something to do. It is like a mantra. Christians constantly review and narrate scripture.

As to morality the pitiful support by Christians of a morally repugnant Trump. Christian politicians on both sides engaging in pitiful viscous bickering. The Abraham faiths are moral ambiguous at best.

The Israel disablement of Arabs for settlements based on a divine biblical mandate.

Religion is fundamentally discriminatory, the source of conflict. I am right and you are wrong. Protean Christians do not agree on what it means to be Christian.

Jews are perhaps the most discriminatory of all. It is largely based on blood lines.

For some reading the bible instills a sense of power and empowerment from a god. An old human story.

Shakespeare is a far bitter moralist and provides far better moral stories than anything in the bible. Conscious was a far beret moralist than ancient Hebrews. Buddha. Aesop for that matter. Greek philosophers.

Am I missing something? I am all ears.

 

[Politesse]

Accuses Christians of being divisive... in a post filled with a bunch of crass stereotypes of anyone who believes differently from him... in a thread devoted to mocking people grieving for a recently dead friend...

 

[steve_bank]

All you have to do is look at region as it affects societies. It has positives and negatives, IMO negatives far outweighs positives.

If it is stereotyping it is based on observable actions and behaviors throughout history. Organized religion has never been beneficent.

Our iconic Pilgrims were not fleeing atheists or Muslims. They were fleeing other Christians. In the new world they themselves set up an intolerant community.

Colonial Christianity was intolerant. That is why freedom of region and prohibitions against making religious laws and religious tests are in COTUS. It was to protect minority Christians from majority Christians.

Actions speak better than words.

 

[Rhea]

Well, no I think you are wrong. You seem to think God should make it easy for us. If it's difficult, it must be human?

If it is inconsistent and based on greed and ignorance then it seems human. If it were from a God I would expect a titch more “perfection.” But that’s just me. Maybe you have. Very low bar for the competence of deities in communicating their wishes and values.

. Nothing that come easy is as good as something you work at. If you can't just look at advanced calculus without effort, it's not worth it.

Now, that is interesting. And I disagree. Looking at a rainbow only takes a knowledge of which way to look when the sun comes out and the rain retreats over the pasture. And it is way more gooder than, say, mowing the lawn which can take a lot more work.

Making a child giggle is ridiculously easy and very good, compared with, say, doing calculus.

I love your cheeky comments

Glad to oblige

 

[Politesse]

All you have to do is look at region as it affects societies. It has positives and negatives, IMO negatives far outweighs positives.

If it is stereotyping it is based on observable actions and behaviors throughout history. Organized religion has never been beneficent.

Our iconic Pilgrims were not fleeing atheists or Muslims. They were fleeing other Christians. In the new world they themselves set up an intolerant community.

Colonial Christianity was intolerant. That is why freedom of region and prohibitions against making religious laws and religious tests are in COTUS. It was to protect minority Christians from majority Christians.

Actions speak better than words.

So if we were to look at the most significant atheist states in history, you would say this is a good way to test whether atheists are more or less prone to discrimination against minority groups?

 

[steve_bank]

All you have to do is look at region as it affects societies. It has positives and negatives, IMO negatives far outweighs positives.

If it is stereotyping it is based on observable actions and behaviors throughout history. Organized religion has never been beneficent.

Our iconic Pilgrims were not fleeing atheists or Muslims. They were fleeing other Christians. In the new world they themselves set up an intolerant community.

Colonial Christianity was intolerant. That is why freedom of region and prohibitions against making religious laws and religious tests are in COTUS. It was to protect minority Christians from majority Christians.

Actions speak better than words.

So if we were to look at the most significant atheist states in history, you would say this is a good way to test whether atheists are more or less prone to discrimination against minority groups?

Russian communism was strongly anti religion because under the Czars the church was an instrument of state used against the peasants.

If an aristocrat killed or harmed a peasant an indulgence could be bought from the church. Which by the way was one of Luther's complaints.

The point we atheists male is that most of us will accept faith under freedom of thought, up until the point where Christians and others presume a moral absolutism based on ancient writings and impose it on us.

I equally reject Stalinist communism and Christian orthodoxy forced on me. Forced on me by politicians attemtuing to enact religious interpretation into law.



Being called fundamentally immoral for lack of religion. And so on.

I read a book called Diary Of A Revolutionists by Kropotkin. He was an aristocrat up in the hierarchy who became a radical. He describes the life of the lower class and the abuses of the church. While it turned out badly, the revolution did not occur without a cause. The church in Europe and Russia was always an instrument of state power used to control the masses. That is simply history. Iran today is symbolic of that history in general.

You are welcome to your beliefs, I would not have it any oter way. Just do not tell me there is a morality derived from the bible and practice that is good.

Do not tell us Christianity is fundamentally right and moral by invoking scripture and god.

Leninism was an adaption of Marxism. It made atheism part of the social ideology. Russian communism was not based on atheism. Atheism is not an isdeolgy, it is a rejection of the supernatural regions. No more mo less.

An atheist may have one of many moral and political philosophies, or none at all.

 

[steve_bank]

Well, no I think you are wrong. You seem to think God should make it easy for us. If it's difficult, it must be human?

Keep in mind we do not believe in god. For me the assertion above is interpenetration of what you think god is and wants. On the religious forum we engage to point out generals hypocrisy, inconsistencies, ambiguities, interpretation without foundation, and false claims made by region in general.

Not believing in god we do not think god wants anything...

 

[HaRaAYaH]

Now, that is interesting. And I disagree. Looking at a rainbow only takes a knowledge of which way to look when the sun comes out and the rain retreats over the pasture. And it is way more gooder than, say, mowing the lawn which can take a lot more work.

We will just have to agree to disagree. As I said before, I prefer clarity to agreement. In life you tend to get more satisfaction from creating something for yourself than having it handed to you. Teenagers who work for their money are much more appreciative of the money than those who have it handed to them. When I am involved in an intellectual pursuit whether it is a difficult Biblical or Talmudic Passage, or some new information about US history I enjoy the pursuit. Just having things handed to me is not as satisfying.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

Well, no I think you are wrong. You seem to think God should make it easy for us. If it's difficult, it must be human?

Keep in mind we do not believe in god. For me the assertion above is interpenetration of what you think god is and wants. On the religious forum we engage to point out generals hypocrisy, inconsistencies, ambiguities, interpretation without foundation, and false claims made by region in general.

Not believing in god we do not think god wants anything...

You may not, but Rhea seems to think so......

 

[steve_bank]

Well, no I think you are wrong. You seem to think God should make it easy for us. If it's difficult, it must be human?

Keep in mind we do not believe in god. For me the assertion above is interpenetration of what you think god is and wants. On the religious forum we engage to point out generals hypocrisy, inconsistencies, ambiguities, interpretation without foundation, and false claims made by region in general.

Not believing in god we do not think god wants anything...

You may not, but Rhea seems to think so......

We are limited by language to express atheist thoughts about god concepts. Sometimes we personify and anthropomorphize because it is convenient. Sometimes we may speak as if god is real, again an artifact of language and communication.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

All you have to do is look at region as it affects societies. It has positives and negatives, IMO negatives far outweighs positives.

If it is stereotyping it is based on observable actions and behaviors throughout history. Organized religion has never been beneficent.

Not so much. The Abolitionist movement and the Civil Rights movement were largely religiously lead. It was The Rev. Dr, Martin Luther King and Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel who believed in the Prophetic Vision. Though largely Christian, almost every Civil Rights leadetr had a copy of Heschel's The Prophets.in their pocket

Our iconic Pilgrims were not fleeing atheists or Muslims. They were fleeing other Christians. In the new world they themselves set up an intolerant community.

Colonial Christianity was intolerant. That is why freedom of region and prohibitions against making religious laws and religious tests are in COTUS. It was to protect minority Christians from majority Christians.

But they just want to worship in their own way. You are correct about their intolerance. They were not very welcoming to Jews.....

Actions speak better than words
So if we were to look at the most significant atheist states in history, you would say this is a good way to test whether atheists are more or less prone to discrimination against minority groups?

Russian communism was strongly anti religion because under the Czars the church was an instrument of state used against the peasants.

If an aristocrat killed or harmed a peasant an indulgence could be bought from the church. Which by the way was one of Luther's complaints.

The point we atheists male is that most of us will accept faith under freedom of thought, up until the point where Christians and others presume a moral absolutism based on ancient writings and impose it on us.

I equally reject Stalinist communism and Christian orthodoxy forced on me. Forced on me by politicians attemtuing to enact religious interpretation into law.



Being called fundamentally immoral for lack of religion. And so on.

I read a book called Diary Of A Revolutionists by Kropotkin. He was an aristocrat up in the hierarchy who became a radical. He describes the life of the lower class and the abuses of the church. While it turned out badly, the revolution did not occur without a cause. The church in Europe and Russia was always an instrument of state power used to control the masses. That is simply history. Iran today is symbolic of that history in general.

You are welcome to your beliefs, I would not have it any oter way. Just do not tell me there is a morality derived from the bible and practice that is good.

Do not tell us Christianity is fundamentally right and moral by invoking scripture and god.

Leninism was an adaption of Marxism. It made atheism part of the social ideology. Russian communism was not based on atheism. Atheism is not an isdeolgy, it is a rejection of the supernatural regions. No more mo less.

An atheist may have one of many moral and political philosophies, or none at all.

So it;s ok for you to say all religion is bad because some religious people are evil. It's the religion that makes them evil. Yet, the two largest mass murders in history Stalin and Mao were atheists and their states and cultures were ant relegious. They probably killed more people than all of the religious tyrants in history. But it had nothing to do with their atheism. It was because they were evil.......

I commend a book to you. It was written by a concentration camp survivor. It is one of the books I required my children to read. It's called Man's Search for Meaning. By Victor Frankl.

In it Frankl Wrote:

From all this we may learn that there are two races of men in this world, but only these two — the “race” of the decent man and the “race” of the indecent man. Both are found everywhere; they penetrate into all groups of society. No group consists entirely of decent or indecent people

And so it is. There are decent people who are religious and there are indecent people who are religious. There are decent people who are atheists and there are indecent people who are atheists. Stalin wasn't a murderer because he was an atheist, it was because he was a psychopath. People who use religion against others are just using religion for their own ends.

As for politicians "forcing" their views on you. It's their right in a free society to advocate any position they want and it is your right to oppose it....

 

[Rhea]

We will just have to agree to disagree. As I said before, I prefer clarity to agreement.

? That’s what I’ve been saying. There’s no clarity in the document.

In life you tend to get more satisfaction from creating something for yourself than having it handed to you.

This makes sense in human things. It does not make sense in the instruction book of whether you get eternal happiness or eternal torture. Some things need to operate on different standards.

That is satisfying for fiction, but not for instruction manuals.

Teenagers who work for their money are much more appreciative of the money than those who have it handed to them. When I am involved in an intellectual pursuit whether it is a difficult Biblical or Talmudic Passage, or some new information about US history I enjoy the pursuit. Just having things handed to me is not as satisfying.

I was very very satisfied to have Lock-Out-Tag-Out training handed to me without any “pursuit.”

 

[steve_bank]

Again.

If you look at all my postings I do mot say all aspects of religion are bad. As you said it comes down to behavior.



One of my main issues is for Christians is the presumption of an absolute morality derived from a somewhat ambiguous scripture and ordained by god.

A cursory review of history to today shows none of the Abrahamics collective stand out morally.

American Crustaceans often can not agree on who really is a Christian. And so on.

Religion is fine for the individual, but like any group ideology it takes on a life of its own. We are right you are wrong.

I do not want to open debate on Israel, but Netanyahu represents Israeli Zionists. He has said so on camera. Israel essential has a god given right to displace Arabs in Palestine. I am sure on a personal basis Israeli Zionists are mostly ethical people.