Science will not win over Religion

[razerbelkin]

[conon394]

That does not answer my question

"imagine the all-perfect, all-knowing, absolutely just and pure being,"

Justify the fate Jericho at the hands this just pure being. or cut it out of the bible as mistake.

[basics]

conon394,

Why does Jericho bother you so much? My understanding is that Jericho appeared to be the key to the Holy Land , its people holding sway over the other cities and so as they followed a false god their fate was sealed. Just before that though over some forty years God saw to it that the Israelites who had spurned Him were made to die never to see the Land and their number I would suggest was much larger than those in Jericho. So, one can see and read that His justice applies to everyone regardless of nation.

[Prodromos]

I don't find Basics understanding of a merciless, revengeful god appealing too.

Frea on the other hand...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

When your god is basically just a bobblehead that nods in agreement with whatever you're into, that's a pretty good sign that your god is made up. Your worship of "Freyja" is obviously just a mask for self-worship.

On the other hand, the God of the Bible radically challenges and transforms us. This is actually one of the proofs of Christianity's divine origin.

An ineffably holy God, who has the utmost abhorrence of all sin, was never invented by any of Adam’s fallen descendants.

Imagine yourself as a living house. God comes in to rebuild that house. At first, perhaps, you can understand what He is doing. He is getting the drains right and stopping the leaks in the roof and so on; you knew that those jobs needed doing and so you are not surprised. But presently He starts knocking the house about in a way that hurts abominably and does not seem to make any sense. What on earth is He up to? The explanation is that He is building quite a different house from the one you thought of - throwing out a new wing here, putting on an extra floor there, running up towers, making courtyards. You thought you were being made into a decent little cottage: but He is building a palace. He intends to come and live in it Himself.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

If your evangelical sect demands nothing more from you than praying and visiting sunday mess regularily instead of giving your wealth away to care for the poor and living a poor, simple life like Jesus and the first Apostles than your sect is clearly made up for casual "christians".

You don't get me with shallow talk without any innerlight or wisdom from some US preachers.

[Cyclops]

When your god is basically just a bobblehead that nods in agreement with whatever you're into, that's a pretty good sign that your god is made up.

Look that's a little rude. One can make ill willed statements about Christians too, such as "YHWH is a male God who designates women as unclean" who hurt you God?

Your worship of "Freyja" is obviously just a mask for self-worship.

Likewise YHWH demands mutilation and tithing. Is it a mask for self harm addicts, and scammers?

On the other hand, the God of the Bible radically challenges and transforms us. This is actually one of the proofs of Christianity's divine origin.

YHWH tells his people to murder babies (1 Samuel 15:3), and commands a literal holocaust (Deuteronomy 20 passim). He even gives instructions as to how to cleanse the guilt of shedding innocent blood (Deuteronomy 21:8). I guess killing innocent babies and pregnant women is fairly transformative.

Straight up mockery of another faith is a hurtful and divisive game. We are on a history forum so I assume you know our Christian ancestors slaughtered and raped along with the rest of the religions and anti religions.

People approach the divine as best they can. If you turn it into a slanging match? That's not approaching the divine, that's just bickering.

I am sure Freyja has some text or doctrine to discuss, and if its hypocritical or stupid then point that out. I happily point out when someone's claims about scripture or reality seem illogical.

If you're right and your faith shows you this, why argue?

[Bande Nere]

When your god is basically just a bobblehead that nods in agreement with whatever you're into, that's a pretty good sign that your god is made up. Your worship of "Freyja" is obviously just a mask for self-worship.

On the other hand, the God of the Bible radically challenges and transforms us. This is actually one of the proofs of Christianity's divine origin.

Making a semite from Galilea look like a swedish beach model obviously has nothing to do with masking one's self-worship.

Many things can radically challenge and transform us. Do you have a personal example to "prove your proof" or do we just have to take your word for it?

An ineffably holy God, who has the utmost abhorrence of all sin, was never invented by any of Adam’s fallen descendants.

The obvious contradictions of the Christian God, vengeful and violent and yet just and full of love, simply prove it is nothing more than another flawed human construct.

CS Lewis was a great writer of fables. A shame some of them are taken so seriously.

[antaeus]

If you're right and your faith shows you this, why argue?

Argument is justification and supplication to ego.

God of the Bible offers a coercive control mechanism for temporal power. And now that there is a separation of state from belief, that control mechanism is largely gaslighting. Buying into that societal management framework means accepting that one's own thoughts and actions must be moderated significantly more than those of us who do not buy into this framework. That's an ego hit.

The defensive argument that is waged against non-believers of this or any belief, is as much a self-affirmation process as it is about the legitimacy of that belief system.

That, and it's an opportunity for some ineffective proselytising.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The good thing of the neopagan approach is, that we have no scripture, as there is no gallic, belgic or germanic holy book. We have only some archaelogic evidence at some springs, rivers, lakes, groves, mighty trees. And the dates of some festivals around sun solstices.

So you are relative free in your religious practice and for me its a prayer at some for me inspiring place. Some places or trees have this aura, you feel simple the mystique and magic of this place.

And i like my personal prayers and beliefs.

And yes i have read the whole bible, but it didn't speak to me. And i largely disliked the OT, especially the annihilation of whole caanite cities, especially that one city, where the whole population converted to Jahwe, but the Hebrews slaughtered the whole population after the men of the city lay down weakened by circumcision. That was too malignant cowardice for me.

[conon394]

Why does Jericho bother you so much?

I suppose because first a flat out myth easily disprovable by archeology... But second and far more important is that it is a gruesome unnecessary genocide and I suppose I am equality horrified you are nonplussed by it (be it real or just a national fiction)

So again did not happen no evidence so just a just so story and that makes it worse. Not the action of as state fighting a total war for 15 or 20 years in where both sides have driven themselves to the lowest common denominator on non humanity... But no we just instant genocide everything including animals . That is absolutely nonsensical. Is also gross because at best Jericho if had existed as more than almost not visible village without walls at the time but the propaganda in the Bible would have be some for type of either Monarchy or Oligarchy ruled by aristocrats. That means the decision it made would have excluded most men, all women, slaves and any second class residents and last I checked livestock never gets a vote oh and children because they so got say in denying a bunch free loaders their land and saying bugger off this is our home.

I just am really surprised you can be chill with a brutal god and than claim he is so soft and comforting. Hey after the walls fell maybe Jesus could have appeared than and given the residents the option to repent or something , but err no.

and so as they followed a false god their fate was sealed

No offer to repent hear the truth etc. Thus a blood soaked gruesome god.

[basics]

conon394,

Because archeologists can easily disprove its existence, how? You're annoyed with a God who doesn't exist who destroyed a city that never existed and you want me to cry over that? Come on man if you have to argue make your arguments consistent.

[Bande Nere]

conon394,

Because archeologists can easily disprove its existence, how? You're annoyed with a God who doesn't exist who destroyed a city that never existed and you want me to cry over that? Come on man if you have to argue make your arguments consistent.

I think his main issue is that you believe that happened and are perfectly fine with slaughtering entire cities of non-believers.

Are you sure Afghanistan isn't a better suited place for your particular strain of religion?

[conon394]

conon394,

Because archeologists can easily disprove its existence, how? You're annoyed with a God who doesn't exist who destroyed a city that never existed and you want me to cry over that? Come on man if you have to argue make your arguments consistent.

I am consistent as DavibBN pointed out. Its a key point where the fact sow the bible simply wrong. But as more importantly allowing taking the bible at its word its a horrific story and certainly is not one that suggests a loving or merciful god. Moreover that people you basics are nonplussed by the

how

Umm no archeological backing for the story. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence for a sudden arrival of a migration of peoples as biblical described the simple Jericho was tiny and had to walls to fall. It is clearly the propaganda of a later era when Jericho was actually a town/city not just an un walled village. In fact a it was previously a modest walled town but to early for matching the story.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Argument is justification and supplication to ego.

God of the Bible offers a coercive control mechanism for temporal power. And now that there is a separation of state from belief, that control mechanism is largely gaslighting. Buying into that societal management framework means accepting that one's own thoughts and actions must be moderated significantly more than those of us who do not buy into this framework. That's an ego hit.

The defensive argument that is waged against non-believers of this or any belief, is as much a self-affirmation process as it is about the legitimacy of that belief system.

That, and it's an opportunity for some ineffective proselytising.

I think this is a bit cynical. The faithful Christian is constantly overwhelmed by his own fallibility in the knowledge of God’s eternal perfection, and yet also by his duty to be a living witness of eternal salvation to his fellow men, as Jesus was. I can tell you from experience there are few terrors in life more grim than the fear of dying in sin. A premature demise in righteousness is categorically preferable since the whole point of the Christian life is to prepare for death anyway.

29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.
30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
4 He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.
5 But whoso keepeth his word, in him verily is the love of God perfected: hereby know we that we are in him.
6 He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked.
7 Brethren, I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the beginning. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the beginning.
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

It’s unsurprising this might create some need to find ways to reassure himself of his own eternal position, and that can sometimes manifest in an abrasive didactic certainty. I try to be grateful I was able to see my way clear while I’m young enough for it to matter. I look at my dad and I feel bewildered on his behalf; religion is all he has left in life and he simply avoids any information that conflicts with that lifestyle because the alternative is to admit he is approaching old age having lived his entire adult life based on incorrect assumptions. I suspect many find themselves in such a position.

[antaeus]

I think this is a bit cynical. The faithful Christian is constantly overwhelmed by his own fallibility in the knowledge of God’s eternal perfection, and yet also by his duty to be a living witness of eternal salvation to his fellow men, as Jesus was. I can tell you from experience there are few terrors in life more grim than the fear of dying in sin. A premature demise in righteousness is categorically preferable since the whole point of the Christian life is to prepare for death anyway.

It's fair to label my view cynical.

But I could also point my cynicism towards the idea that a doctrine's purpose is to prepare one for death (or the next life). As evidenced by all kinds of approaches towards the afterlife by all kinds of religions. A faith that helps one prepare for what happens after their death is a form of coercion that can be used to further temporal aims by the keepers of that faith, or that faith's in-group.

The idea that this life is just the first stage or a preparation for more plays on the selfish ego. I want to live forever, and be rewarded for living a 'good life'. A subjectively 'good life' and a subjectively 'good death' are excellent mechanisms for social control. I don't dispute that beliefs are genuine and earnest. But I would argue that earnest belief is an excellent form of social control, and at worst, abuse.

To find oneself at the end of one's dedicated life, with the realisation that so much time and energy has been wasted on a belief that might not actually grant salvation must be torture. So I entirely understand why that might lead to dissonance. And I wouldn't judge someone for avoiding that dissonance at all costs. We all live by community codes and standards. Whether they be religious or not. I don't go and shoot my neighbour when I'm annoyed with them. In some respects the source of legitimacy of our social codes could be considered irrelevant. Ukrainians and Russians aren't killing each other because they're seeking heavenly salvation through crusade. So I don't think religions are uniquely guilty of being a framework through which societies can abuse.

[basics]

antaeus,

The whole point of us being here is to fulfill God's purpose for us. The very fact that Jesus Christ came into this world as a man thus fulfilling the prophecies made from the very beginning of time, doing all the supernatural things He did is proof that mankind needs a Saviour more than he'll ever know until that event takes place and of course I'm talking of new life, being born again. I am not controlled, rather guided by God that I should lack nothing the day He calls me out of this world.

[conon394]

Dodged my question there basics. So you are absolutely chill with genocide against people given no offer of a chance to repent or see the light even to those who had no personal choice in their situation? And when the saving of the prostitute says that could have happened. Your god is brutal and cruel and hypocritical and capricious.

[Lord Thesaurian]

It's fair to label my view cynical.

But I could also point my cynicism towards the idea that a doctrine's purpose is to prepare one for death (or the next life). As evidenced by all kinds of approaches towards the afterlife by all kinds of religions. A faith that helps one prepare for what happens after their death is a form of coercion that can be used to further temporal aims by the keepers of that faith, or that faith's in-group.

The idea that this life is just the first stage or a preparation for more plays on the selfish ego. I want to live forever, and be rewarded for living a 'good life'. A subjectively 'good life' and a subjectively 'good death' are excellent mechanisms for social control. I don't dispute that beliefs are genuine and earnest. But I would argue that earnest belief is an excellent form of social control, and at worst, abuse.

To find oneself at the end of one's dedicated life, with the realisation that so much time and energy has been wasted on a belief that might not actually grant salvation must be torture. So I entirely understand why that might lead to dissonance. And I wouldn't judge someone for avoiding that dissonance at all costs. We all live by community codes and standards. Whether they be religious or not. I don't go and shoot my neighbour when I'm annoyed with them. In some respects the source of legitimacy of our social codes could be considered irrelevant. Ukrainians and Russians aren't killing each other because they're seeking heavenly salvation through crusade. So I don't think religions are uniquely guilty of being a framework through which societies can abuse.

I agree one could call Christianity anthropocentric and that moral codes need not be religious, but I think a characterization as abusive or coercive misses the point. One wouldn’t consider the concept of law and order inherently abusive, for example. The struggle between what Christianity calls spirit and flesh is intuitive to the human experience. We know we shouldn’t eat unhealthy food, do drugs or get away certain things just because no one is watching. We know that because we know what the consequences could be. Does that mean we are abusing ourselves when we refrain from doing something we might very much want to do? I would think not. Self indulgence and corruption is human; so too is the desire for self-denial in pursuit of better outcomes. As Jesus said, what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? It’s a rational trade off we make every single day. What Christianity offers is a systematic approach.

Granted, not everything is useful. A 2500 year old moral code is bound to develop odd habits. Proverbs says, “Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.” Though I’m no longer religious, I refused a Buddha statue from my mother in law because I’m apprehensive about having pagan idols in my house. I still get nervous if I forget to capitalize “God.” Whenever people I care about mock him, I still silently plead for mercy for them - just in case. Whenever I’m confronted with a difficult personal choice, I still turn to the Bible.

And yet, self-restraint is civilization itself, warts and all. We can replace the cross with the rainbow flag and the church with the hedonist night clubs, we can gain the whole world and say we are thereby ending an abuse. But just like the leaders of a church, those who have presided over this change must own the consequences for good or ill. I’m not convinced the idolatry of self can ever satisfy the innate human desire to be free from that self, regardless of whether or not God or gods have anything to do with it. Therefore, the pursuit of mastery of self is not abusive, it is self-indulgence which is more often abusive and harmful.

Spoiler for Favorites from Ecclesiastes: 

Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.

What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?

All things are full of labour; man cannot utter it: the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun.

He who loves silver will not be satisfied with silver;
Nor he who loves abundance, with increase.
This also is vanity.

When goods increase,
They increase who eat them;
So what profit have the owners
Except to see them with their eyes?

The sleep of a laboring man is sweet,
Whether he eats little or much;
But the abundance of the rich will not permit him to sleep.

There is a severe evil which I have seen under the sun:
Riches kept for their owner to his hurt.

But those riches perish through misfortune;
When he begets a son, there is nothing in his hand.

As he came from his mother’s womb, naked shall he return,
To go as he came;
And he shall take nothing from his labor
Which he may carry away in his hand.

And this also is a severe evil—
Just exactly as he came, so shall he go.
Andwhat profit has he who has labored for the wind?

All his days he also eats in darkness,
And he has much sorrow and sickness and anger.

All the labor of man is for his mouth,
And yet the soul is not satisfied.

For what more has the wise man than the fool?
What does the poor man have,
Who knows how to walk before the living?

Better is the sight of the eyes than the wandering of desire.
This also is vanity and grasping for the wind.

[basics]

Dodged my question there basics. So you are absolutely chill with genocide against people given no offer of a chance to repent or see the light even to those who had no personal choice in their situation? And when the saving of the prostitute says that could have happened. Your god is brutal and cruel and hypocritical and capricious.

conon394,

From the fall of Adam and Eve mankind has known what to expect if he or she continues to disobey or disbelieve God. Noah brought that truth with him and his family out of the flood yet it didn't take long for his offspring to fall into the same old danger by inventing their own gods. Man cannot repent of his own volition because repentance can only happen at God's will for any person and even then brought to the situation where he or she realizes how offensive to God they have become. God knows you better than you know yourself and it is He Who has set the rules for you to follow. Therefore, how is He all that you have called Him?

[Cyclops]

Its a pretty simple argument, Bible says God is good, just, and loving. God approves of ripping open pregnant women and exterminating tribes. So its a fair question, is ripping open babies and exterminating whole tribes is good?

Yes or no, no near death or conversion experiences here, just a straight question needing a straight answer.