Rationalizing faith.

[steve_bank]

Learner, you are rationalizing and hiding from reality.

Christians slaughtered Christians for centuries in Europe. Until the Reformation and beyond you could get the death penalty for translating the bible from Latin(RCC) into a common language.

Our iconic Pilgrims were not fleeing atheists or Muslims, they were fleeing other Christians.

Our constructional prohibitions against govt enabling religion and against religious tests for office were intended to protect minority Christians from majority Christians. The colonies were overwhelmingly Christian, freedom of religion meant freedom from domination by any particular Christian sect. It was in part a response to the power of the English state relgion.

Christians have been their own worse enemies.


The irony is atheists are likely more tolerant of diversity of beliefs than Christians.

Never met anyone who 'hates Jesus'. That idea is a Christian boogeyman meant to scare children into believing and to facus Christian hate on. The kind of hate that binds people against a perceived common enemy.

In his day he would have been hated, but not by atheists. Given the depiction in the gospels his enemies were the Jewish power élite. The Temple was what we would call a corporation making a lot of money. He was interfering with economic and power elite, his fate was sealed from the beginning. He was calling people out for hypocrisy. He was not speaking to gentiles.

Paul addressed the question of whether or not one needed to be a Jew to be Christian.

What you have is Paulism, not Christianity based on a Jewish rabbi.

Jesus says? There are scant direct quotes in the gospels, written by unknown authors. The Jesus in the gospels did not lay oit any detailed theology and why would hem ne was a Jewish rabbi speaking to Jews. He never renounced his relgion. He reinforced Mosaic Law, as in the question of divorce. He lumped fornication with murder. He quoted Jewish prophets.

The 1st century gentiles who took to Christianity RATIONALIZED the appropriation of Jewish scripture as their own and made their own interpretations. That s where the enmity between Jews and Christians began. As a kid I heard 'The Jews Killed Christ'.


I can respect most personal beliefs, but do not tell me Christianity does not have a dark history right through today.

'God Hates Fags' has been a battle cry from Evangelicals.

And to the OP, you are rationalizing your faith right here on the thread.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Never met anyone who 'hates Jesus'.

There it is. The six most sensible words I've read all week. Add God to that. I'm atheist -- devout -- and it is impossible for me to hate God. If I did, I'd also be hatin' Fagin, Iago, Richard III, Dracula, and the Hamburglar.
This "You hate God and want to rebel against Him" trope must derive from the believers' denial and incomprehension of the fact that some people just don't believe in their invisible world at all. Well, we don't, and the only reason we seem to obsess over it is this weird disposition of humanity to invent deities and live in thrall to their inventions.

 

[steve_bank]

Why on Earth would I hate something I think is a myth.

What people do in the name of a myth secular, political, or religious is another matter.

 

[DBT]

It's quite strange, you hate God and that's why you don't believe He exists.

 

[Politesse]

It's quite strange, you hate God and that's why you don't believe He exists.

Atheists, in fairness, do often give the impression of deciding that people don't exist out of pure dislike. It's not just God, there's no historical religious figure who hasn't been seriously accused of not either really existing or being utterly unlike their common representation. Jesus, Mohammad, Siddartha, Old Dorothy, all of them entirely fictional or entirely fraudulent. The only targets who don't get this treatment are people who lived in modern times, but there's still an attempt to entirely reframe their existence. Mother Teresa and Gandhi existed, but were secretly evil classists who fetishized/hated the poor. MLK existed, but wasn't really a Christian. Ontology and emotion seem to be be very closely related concepts for many.

 

[DBT]

It's quite strange, you hate God and that's why you don't believe He exists.

Atheists, in fairness, do often give the impression of deciding that people don't exist out of pure dislike. It's not just God, there's no historical religious figure who hasn't been seriously accused of not either really existing or being utterly unlike their common representation. Jesus, Mohammad, Siddartha, Old Dorothy, all of them entirely fictional or entirely fraudulent. The only targets who don't get this treatment are people who lived in modern times, but there's still an attempt to entirely reframe their existence. Mother Teresa and Gandhi existed, but were secretly evil classists who fetishized/hated the poor. MLK existed, but wasn't really a Christian. Ontology and emotion seem to be be very closely related concepts for many.

Dislike is a far cry from hate. Some may dislike the idea or concept of God, but that's not a case of 'you hate God.'

 

[steve_bank]

I read a bio of Ghndi. He certainly had his quirks. He believed fasting and mud baths cured disease. He had a problm contollig hid libido. IOW lust. He rationalized his infidelities away.

Does not detract from what he accomplished.

I read Mother Teresa's book. Mother Teresa was the sort of person who when walking down the street seeing a wretched, filthy, sick person on the street would pick him up and carry him to her hospital. Her detractors among other things accused her of using charity to promote religion. Much as the Salvation Army does today.

My point always is that Christians demonstrably have no superior high moral ground above atheists and anyone else. We are all corrupted by the same vices. Atheist and theist alike.

Christians act just like anybody else despite the holier than thou attitude.

Gandhi was quite down to Earth. When young Europeans showed up to hang out with the master they did not understand how the great man would sit around and chat like a normal person with those around him.

As his fame grew people from afar began to idealize him and put him on a pedestal. Whoever Jesus may have been, it i not hard to see how a legend could have evolved in the telling.

Gandhi knew he would be assonated in the end,. He was Hindu and had a prayer to say when it happed. He said the prayer as he fell.

For Jesus it was his fellow Jews. For Gandhi it was his fellow Hindus.

 

[Politesse]

I read a bio of Ghndi. He certainly had his quirks. He believed fasting and mud baths cured disease. He had a problm contollig hid libido. IOW lust. He rationalized his infidelities away.

Does not detract from what he accomplished.

I read Mother Teresa's book. Mother Teresa was the sort of person who when walking down the street seeing a wretched, filthy, sick person on the street would pick him up and carry him to her hospital. Her detractors among other things accused her of using charity to promote religion. Much as the Salvation Army does today.

My point always is that Christians demonstrably have no superior high moral ground above atheists and anyone else. We are all corrupted by the same vices. Atheist and theist alike.

Christians act just like anybody else despite the holier than thou attitude.

Gandhi was quite down to Earth. When young Europeans showed up to hang out with the master they did not understand how the great man would sit around and chat like a normal person with those around him.

As his fame grew people from afar began to idealize him and put him on a pedestal. Whoever Jesus may have been, it i not hard to see how a legend could have evolved in the telling.

Gandhi knew he would be assonated in the end,. He was Hindu and had a prayer to say when it happed. He said the prayer as he fell.

For Jesus it was his fellow Jews. For Gandhi it was his fellow Hindus.

So it almost always ends.

 

[Learner]

A quick respose to this post first ...

I read a bio of Ghndi. He certainly had his quirks. He believed fasting and mud baths cured disease. He had a problm contollig hid libido. IOW lust. He rationalized his infidelities away.

Does not detract from what he accomplished.

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ,” is attributed to Ghandi. As I said in my previous posts, under the Chrstian banner, there are ALL sorts. And underguise, there have been all sorts going on, not to be dismissive of influences like for example: deliberate distortions, corruption, sabotage, power grabbing agendas elevating one's public status and so on.

Ghandi highlights Jesus quite different, opposed to those bad influences, which is Not according to what He teaches, even when they contradictively place themselves under the Christian banner.

Ghandi seems to 'understand' this.

I read Mother Teresa's book. Mother Teresa was the sort of person who when walking down the street seeing a wretched, filthy, sick person on the street would pick him up and carry him to her hospital. Her detractors among other things accused her of using charity to promote religion. Much as the Salvation Army does today.

My point always is that Christians demonstrably have no superior high moral ground above atheists and anyone else. We are all corrupted by the same vices. Atheist and theist alike.

As it should be understood in Christianity: we are ALL sinners (understanding Christians included) ... for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, etc. & etc..

Quite a lot of us (theists) agree with the underlined above.

Christians act just like anybody else despite the holier than thou attitude.

Gandhi was quite down to Earth. When young Europeans showed up to hang out with the master they did not understand how the great man would sit around and chat like a normal person with those around him.

As his fame grew people from afar began to idealize him and put him on a pedestal. Whoever Jesus may have been, it i not hard to see how a legend could have evolved in the telling.

Gandhi knew he would be assonated in the end,. He was Hindu and had a prayer to say when it happed. He said the prayer as he fell.

For Jesus it was his fellow Jews. For Gandhi it was his fellow Hindus.

See previous replies above.

(Have to get back to you another time)

 

[steve_bank]

Jeus in the gospel appears educated, certainly relative to thioe he hung out with. There were Jews in Roe and Syria and they did not all agree as to who the real Jews were.


Look at Saudi Arabia today where blasphemy and apostasy can get a death penalty. Not much different than Israel 2000 yeras ago. when people were stoned to death.

If there was such a flesh and blood person he would have been in the meddle of the geopolitics. Take away the fictional supernatural in the gospels and you have an activist, in those times a prophet. There were a number of them. One led Jews ro their deaths at Masada.

Look at the Mid East today. Sau Arabia executed a Saudi journalist for criticizing the govt and royals. There is a geopolitical context to the gospels. A theocratic Jewish state in social and civil unrest.



Others were bandits who posed as the messiah.

Your image of Jesus based on scant information in the gospels is a rationalization. You fill in the blanks to make him into your image. I grew up with the Catholic image of blond hared and blue eyed.

In the home of a black kid I knew was a black Jesus image.

Images of Buddha vary in Asia with the local body features and type.

You invent your faith in your head with no knowledge of who Jesus may have really been or if he actually existed.

Jesus was a Jew. In the gospels he never rejctd it, in fact he reiforced Mosaic Law.

I you want to be a follower, be a Jew.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

If religious folk want to call themselves sinners they only do it to make themselves superior to non-sinners, as odd as that sounds. Keep your religious nuttery to yourselves is my advice. Don't taint me with ignorant, destructive, self-righteous, superstitious, nonsensical pseudo-knowledge, religious or not. We're all people, no one is special if one is mature enough to realize it. We all need to roll up our sleeves and get over our self anointing.

 

[Learner]

IOW, the argument/ discussion isn't going quite the way as you'd like it, and the mockery crockery is your way to deal with nowt to say?

 

[Angry Floof]

If religious folk want to call themselves sinners they only do it to make themselves superior to non-sinners, as odd as that sounds. Keep your religious nuttery to yourselves is my advice. Don't taint me with ignorant, destructive, self-righteous, superstitious, nonsensical pseudo-knowledge, religious or not. We're all people, no one is special if one is mature enough to realize it. We all need to roll up our sleeves and get over our self anointing.

Moral superiority is a common trait of cults and authoritarian ideologies, and self reflection is not.

 

[Politesse]

If religious folk want to call themselves sinners they only do it to make themselves superior to non-sinners, as odd as that sounds. Keep your religious nuttery to yourselves is my advice. Don't taint me with ignorant, destructive, self-righteous, superstitious, nonsensical pseudo-knowledge, religious or not. We're all people, no one is special if one is mature enough to realize it. We all need to roll up our sleeves and get over our self anointing.

Moral superiority is a common trait of cults and authoritarian ideologies, and self reflection is not.

Who is good at self reflection, other than Zen monks?

 

[DBT]

IOW, the argument/ discussion isn't going quite the way as you'd like it, and the mockery crockery is your way to deal with nowt to say?

Which way is It going? Are you suggesting that faith is being successfully justified?

 

[steve_bank]

IOW, the argument/ discussion isn't going quite the way as you'd like it, and the mockery crockery is your way to deal with nowt to say?

You fail to grasp where we are cumming from. We do not believe in nay gods or supernatural agents. Speaking for myself I am not out to dissuasive or win arguments, there are no agreements to win.

Theists base arguments based on a few ancient lines and subjective feelings. Some hear a voice speaking to them that no one else hears. .

The onus is on the theist to make an objective argument, which is impossible. If it were possible then it wold not be faith it would be fact. It is theists that use the word faith, which in context generally means belief and surety without any substantive proof.

I watch you twist, turn, and do back flips to respond. Mental gymnastics and metaphysics.

You rationalize to protect your belief and protect your self, that is very human as well all do it one way or anther. We just do not invoke a deity.

All theist arguments are rationalizations.

 

[Learner]

IOW, the argument/ discussion isn't going quite the way as you'd like it, and the mockery crockery is your way to deal with nowt to say?

Which way is It going? Are you suggesting that faith is being successfully justified?

I was mockingly suggesting in similar moogly fashion, only because our friend seems to be a little bored with the discussion! (he can handle it)



You & steve seem to find an "argument" in every sentence.

 

[DBT]

IOW, the argument/ discussion isn't going quite the way as you'd like it, and the mockery crockery is your way to deal with nowt to say?

Which way is It going? Are you suggesting that faith is being successfully justified?

I was mockingly suggesting in similar moogly fashion, only because our friend seems to be a little bored with the discussion! (he can handle it)



I suppose you (plural) see an "argument" in everything, which you and steve think you find in every sentence.

I was asking you to explain your remark. Particularly the part where you said - ''the argument/ discussion isn't going quite the way as you'd like it'' - which seemed to suggest that faith is being successfully defended.

 

[Learner]

The remark is in response to a somewhat signing-out of this discussion:

Quote Originally Posted by T.G.G. Moogly View Post
If religious folk want to call themselves sinners they only do it to make themselves superior to non-sinners, as odd as that sounds.

Keep your religious nuttery to yourselves is my advice.

Don't taint me with ignorant, destructive, self-righteous, superstitious, nonsensical pseudo-knowledge, religious or not.

We're all people, no one is special if one is mature enough to realize it. We all need to roll up our sleeves and get over our self anointing.

No prob with last line.

 

[steve_bank]

IOW, the argument/ discussion isn't going quite the way as you'd like it, and the mockery crockery is your way to deal with nowt to say?

Which way is It going? Are you suggesting that faith is being successfully justified?

I was mockingly suggesting in similar moogly fashion, only because our friend seems to be a little bored with the discussion! (he can handle it)



You & steve seem to find an "argument" in every sentence.

After 30 years in engineering it is my nature to question all and everything, even myself. I am so skeptical I question it even when something I built actually works. I hhve to tone it down these days out in the world.

The forum is about Freethought and debate. Not a mutual admiration society. Forum members who have gone on Christian n forums tend to quickly get banned.

Perhaps Danial In The Lions Den is appropriate. If you truly have faith what have you to fear from us? While atheist I do love biblical metaphors.