Understanding the religious mindset

[Lacewing]

Besides, Mannie is very articulate and fully capable of defending himself. Indeed, I would be an admirer of his tenacity and his eloquent defense of his beliefs if he wasn't so devious and deceitful in the way he handles criticism.
_______

I agree. It shouldn't be that hard for him to do... and it's certainly reasonable to expect from someone who claims to have honorable principals.

[henry quirk]

No, Henry... you're wrong.

I have spoken about this many times,

and I'm being honest.

You really need to shut the fuck up about what you think is going on in my head.

You're sounding like Mannie.

I don't think so...I don't think so...I don't think so...no...thank you.


You take dumps on EVERYONE.

Nah...there's a few I haven't got 'round to yet.


Then why am I able to have perfectly reasonable conversations with theists

who focus on the qualities of theism rather than being full of themselves and trashing non-theists?

Name one.

Mannie, I think, would like to discuss his faith; all he really gets to do is avoid gettin' led by the nose.

You assume your artsy-fartsy view is the default and Mannie is the outlier, so he has to defend; he believes his faith is true and your artsy-fartsy view is in error. You take offense; he only offers what believes is true. You react; he responds.

And, not just you: the script you all use (down to the exact wordin') sez a whole bunch about what you all are really up to.

And: no, I ain't citin' diddly...anyone with a mind to can read the threads and draw their own conclusions about what's what & who's who.

[henry quirk]

What it indicates is that there is MORE than the table

No, there's not more than, just more to.


Why aren't you saying that to people who are pretending to be the mouthpieces for gods???

Mannie doesn't do that, and, we had our tussles years ago, in my pre-deist days...even then, opposin' him, I found him as I find him today (tough, but fair; cagey; unwillin' to be led by the nose).


But he runs away from questions that challenge the claims he makes, and he uses deception to twist and avoid accountability and honesty.

No. As I say, he's unwillin' to be led by the nose. Sometimes that means walkin' away from a conversation.


Stop treating him like a victim.

I'm not cuz he's not.


he could answer all of these people for himself if he had the integrity and courage to do so.

He does, when questions are honest; he walks away when they're not.


Why do you suppose you have to degrade any views other than your own?

I don't. I'm just challenging ignorant claims that can't be explained(.) What's wrong with that?

[henry quirk]

It's apparent that **the reason why you are mounting a "stop picking on poor little Mannie" defense of him is because *you have never had the types of debates with him that some of us have had.

*wrong

**I'm not

Your whole line -- from It's clear thru to had -- is the kinda disingenuous garbage Mannie walks away from. Note how my defense of Mannie is reframed in the worst possible light; note how it's assumed I can only defend him cuz I'm ignorant.

You're doin' exactly what you accuse Mannie of doin'.

[seeds]

Besides, Mannie is very articulate and fully capable of defending himself. Indeed, I would be an admirer of his tenacity and his eloquent defense of his beliefs if he wasn't so devious and deceitful in the way he handles criticism.

I agree. It shouldn't be that hard for him to do... and it's certainly reasonable to expect from someone who claims to have honorable principals.

I don't know about you, Lacewing, but this thread is getting exhausting.
_______

[henry quirk]

Besides, Mannie is very articulate and fully capable of defending himself. Indeed, I would be an admirer of his tenacity and his eloquent defense of his beliefs if he wasn't so devious and deceitful in the way he handles criticism.

I agree. It shouldn't be that hard for him to do... and it's certainly reasonable to expect from someone who claims to have honorable principals.

I don't know about you, Lacewing, but *this thread is getting exhausting.
_______

*That happens when folks don't back down: everybody has to work.

[gaffo]

so this particualr we know each others view an dso have no interest in discussion of this particular farther.

Then I'll let it drop.

--------what i would like is a discussion of the nature of Ben Eliazar

Well, give me a reason why I should be interested in him.

I can't if you refuse to listen to the series in order to disscuss his character. the hwole reason i asked you to give your time to listin to the show as in order to disscuss him - for i understand the nature of the other characters.

Ms Grails is a divout Christian but hates God for being born a mutant (she lives here life trying to love god - but deep down semi subconsciously she does not love but blaimes him - when the world is ending she admits this to herself and Bishop Zerky whom she likes and trusts and admits to during her conffesion to him)

Rachel - her "daughter" she loves - Zerky and others do condescend to her view that her "daughter" is a person/soul - zerky realizes his "blinders" (bigotry?) - only at the end of the story and then sees the truth about hre - she is a fully human child and innocent, worthy to be baptiszed.

Bishop Poulo seems a nice guy and is friends to Ben Eliazar, when Ben Eliazar gets paranoid (due to being a jew and know the reprehensible oppression against him as a jew) and slams the Christinas as against him, Poulo reminds him he never acked that way toward him and is his friend, Ben appologizes - so Ben is not more than a man, and is limited via is bias.

Don Todaio is the typical "scientist" fixated on his feild and lack the moral fiber to stand up to the evil uses his knowledge may lead to - Dom is not evil, just spineless and runs to his books to excuse himself of any and all responsibility.


-- its a good work - one of the best ever, i only wanted your view on the Ben character - the one in Miller's works that i do not have the full understanding of.

i know you have a mind and know how to use it and only wished to disscuss this character with you so i might understand him (and Miller - the authoer's intent per his work) better.


but if you refuse to take a fw hours out of your day these next weeks or moths to discuss, well then i gues we cant discus and count me as dissapointed.about that.

[gaffo]

[
The ethics of the common person predates Xity and is far better than Xity. Why confuse the issue?

Ethics is a univeral nature of man - it dates to 2-million BC - and so long before Christianity or any of the other known religons of the world..

[gaffo]

Can you please show what you are specifically referring to?

I simply must say, that since you are the Alpha and the Omega then what’s most important is the effect of the reading of Romans 3 upon yourself.

This is not simply opinion.

This is actually true for each and every human who reads Romans 3, even for those humans who cannot read, for the effect upon illiterates would be realization of their illiteracy, assuming that realization is a human trait not shared by lesser realms such as the animal realm that also cannot read, who apparently could (couldn't?) give a hoot about reading.

The effect of reading Romans 3 is measured by what verses leap out at … you. This is not mere opinion, mere point-of-view that is subject to either relativity or fence-sitting, but rather it is true for each and every human, as mansplained above.

Mansplianed - i like it .

[gaffo]

You will die, Immanuel Can, however much you pray or do good Christian works. It is unlikely any part of you will live forever. Your literal interpretation makes Christianity unsuited to post-enlightenment modernity, and at a time when we desperately need Christian ethics.

No, we do not need any christian ethics.
The ethics where beleiving what you like regardless of evidence and reason is okay?
A ethics that would tear families apart? Is that the ethics you are talking about.
Why take what you think we need ethically and call it "ethics".
The ethics of the common person predates Xity and is far better than Xity. Why confuse the issue?

Who, in your opinion, is "the common person" ?

Immanuel Can, Sculptor, I , and countless millions of others are all common persons. Each person has learned ethics from significant others in their lives and nobody, including the Jewish teacher Jesus of Nazareth, has invented ethics de novo.

Jesus propounded and lived ethics that he supposed to have been passed to men directly from God, that's to say deontological ethics. Safe to say most of us here , unlike Immanuel Can, trust to ethics founded on human trial and error. There is no need to abandon the ethics of Jesus of Nazareth because you do not believe in a supernatural deity.

I do not reject ethics and i am an Atheist.I affirm ethics becasue when i lie ro steal i fell bad later (unles i lie to spare the other - in my yougth as a naive guy i thought i should never lie - adn when my step mom was dying and see said "i love you" and i just stood silent bcasue i did not love her - i should have lied and said i loved her even though i did not - truth above all else -----well not always - i should have lied - that was 30 yrs ago and to this day i hae more guilt over my "purely of never lying" than anything else since.)

I learned the hard way that sometimes it is better to lie, if that lie give comfort to the one you are lying to.

[gaffo]

Well, I'm waiting.

This is the first time you've asked...so I can only imagine the wait has not been long.

The term "original sin" is an invented label, really...it appears nowhere in the Bible. Not that that's wrong: we need some word to summarize an idea, but we can go wrong if we misapply the word "original," so the label isn't entirely clear. But here's what the Bible does actually say:

"The person who sins will die. A son will not suffer the punishment for the father’s guilt, nor will a father suffer the punishment for the son’s guilt; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself." (Ezekiel 18:20)

love Ezekiel - and IMO he is right, but he wrote that counter to the Torah's theology - where so and so peoples offspring will inherit the sins of thier fathers for 7 generations.

so the Torah is wrong on this count - by me and Ezekiel.

[gaffo]

You will die, Immanuel Can, however much you pray or do good Christian works.

"Jesus said...'I am the resurrection and the life; the one who believes in Me will live, even if he dies...' " (John 11:25)

on, John said that Jesus said that.

just like Matt said that Jesus said "why ask me when so and so will happen? only the father knows" so matt is saying Jesus dos not know - but john says jesus is YHWH so by default must know! (so clearly Matt and John had different views of te nature of Jesus)

Jesus left no 1st person writtings - assuming he wrote anyting (no reason to assume he was even literate - i personally suspect he was to get such a following but...........who know) - his works do not survive him assuming he had any.

only works of others generations later about what he said, and all of those works have a the personal bias of that author;s theology. all of them wrote to promote there theology - not that of Jesus's

-------

pure conjecture on my part - since there is no record of Jesus' writting or theology, but i think he was an Essene - 2nd to John th Baptist - who took over after his mentor was beheaded.

I think his theology wa the same as John the Baptists' - as a "wathcer for te mesiah" and then after he gained a larger following allowed himself to get a big head and started to think "maybe i am the mesiah? - maybe his followers were starting to view him as such and he ammended his prior view as a watcher toward the messiah to i am the mesiah. who knows - sems logical to me though.

even assuming he changed that view from watching for the mesiah to i am the messiah - even he would never ay "I am God or even I am Go'ds son") - both are hereseys in Judaism.

and of course the Roman killd him because he was an Essene Nationalist (regardless of whether he thought himself the messiah or waiting for the mesiah) - he was a threat to Roman rule - so the romans killed him.

[gaffo]

Jesus said, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24)

interesting wording - from it it seems John is saying "Chrstians will not be judged on Judgmetn day" only the rest will.

if this is so - what will the rest be judged upon?

if they are not Christian, then no need for a trial - just semd them to Hell forever!

thus no need for a "judgement" day - just a death day instead.

?? so what gives?

[gaffo]

We got on pretty well for 100s of thousands of years before the Jews and we shall persist long after they have been forgotten.

Since the entirety of recorded history is something less than 6000 years, and most of that is the record of constant famines, plagues, wars, oppression, slavery, and incredible human cruelty, what are you calling getting along, "pretty well," unless you equate the perpetuation of protoplasm with successful life. How do you know anything about life for, "100s of thousands of years?"

5000 yrs

I would agree that those who, "identify themselves in terms of some category they belong to," (I'm a Greek, a Japanese, a Hindu, an American, a Christian, a Muslim, a Democrat, A Buddhist, a Jew, an African, a Communist, a feminist, etc. etc.) are all racists and always a source of problems.

amen!

[Age]

Once what the 'you' IS is KNOWN, to one, then that 'one' will KNOW how the 'you' can NOT evolve passed the human being stage.

Whatever. You haven't demonstrated anything compelling for a discussion.

You have NOT asked for ANY thing compelling.