Christianity

[Age]

In one of Paul's letters, I believe titled "Romans", Paul seems to say that the Jews will always be God's chosen by default but that Christians can become part of God's people or whatever if they embrace Christ. I forget the exact wording (something to do with grafting plant roots), however in effect, the Jews can do wrong by God but they always have a special place in God's world, that they are always welcome back into God's fold, and the rest of us have to do a bit more to garner the same kind of favor.

Saying and/or claiming, by a "jew", that 'jews" will always be God's chosen by default and/or that 'jews' always have a special place, as though any one/thing else would not be 'chosen' or would have a 'special place', is like a 'man' saying and/or claiming that God is 'male'.

The absurdity and ridiculous of the two is just blindingly obviously biased, and absolutely illogical and self-contradictory.

Coming from someone who wasn't a Jew, it seems kind of interesting that a Roman citizen would say that. Normally, I think people tend to believe that the world and the gods in it revolve around themselves in some way or fashion. To say that the world revolves around another people seems kind of astonishing in some ways. It's a bit as if Judaism conquered the Roman Empire in the end. That's quite a feat for such a small number of people.

Is there actual proof of what you are saying and claiming, here?

If yes, then where is the 'actual proof', exactly?

I can't remember what'by default ' means.

'I' am not sure that 'you' ever knew, because as far as 'I' am aware it was not 'you' who ever wrote the words, 'by default', anywhere, here.

And, if 'you' had never asked "gary childress" to clarify what it actually meant when it used those words, then 'you' would never know, for sure, what they meant, exactly, as well.

However, I thought the Israelites were God's chosen people because God first chose them to be the people who received the Mosaic Law and upheld the Mosaic Law through all their wanderings.

Again, 'one' saying any thing like, 'i, or we', are 'the chosen one', by some thing', never ever means that 'the thing', actually even exists, nor that 'they' are any so-called 'chosen one/s'.

Also, God, Itself, would never ever choose one human being, nor any human beings, over one or any other ones. Full stop.

It's a matter of historical fact that the Mosaic Law has been influential in the formation of Judaism, Judeo Christianity, and Islam

It is also a matter of historical fact that each and every human being made up and created 'law' has been influential in the formation of some thing or another.

Also, and by the God never ever made up nor created any 'law' at all that you human beings should follow nor abide by.

However, and obviously there is a Universal Lore in which if one or any do not follow and abide by, then there would be negative consequences.

[Belinda]

Saying and/or claiming, by a "jew", that 'jews" will always be God's chosen by default and/or that 'jews' always have a special place, as though any one/thing else would not be 'chosen' or would have a 'special place', is like a 'man' saying and/or claiming that God is 'male'.

The absurdity and ridiculous of the two is just blindingly obviously biased, and absolutely illogical and self-contradictory.


Is there actual proof of what you are saying and claiming, here?

If yes, then where is the 'actual proof', exactly?

I can't remember what'by default ' means.

'I' am not sure that 'you' ever knew, because as far as 'I' am aware it was not 'you' who ever wrote the words, 'by default', anywhere, here.

And, if 'you' had never asked "gary childress" to clarify what it actually meant when it used those words, then 'you' would never know, for sure, what they meant, exactly, as well.

However, I thought the Israelites were God's chosen people because God first chose them to be the people who received the Mosaic Law and upheld the Mosaic Law through all their wanderings.

Again, 'one' saying any thing like, 'i, or we', are 'the chosen one', by some thing', never ever means that 'the thing', actually even exists, nor that 'they' are any so-called 'chosen one/s'.

Also, God, Itself, would never ever choose one human being, nor any human beings, over one or any other ones. Full stop.

It's a matter of historical fact that the Mosaic Law has been influential in the formation of Judaism, Judeo Christianity, and Islam

It is also a matter of historical fact that each and every human being made up and created 'law' has been influential in the formation of some thing or another.

Also, and by the God never ever made up nor created any 'law' at all that you human beings should follow nor abide by.

However, and obviously there is a Universal Lore in which if one or any do not follow and abide by, then there would be negative consequences.

Ideas, Age, are influential. Stories of man's past all tell of influential ideas. Academic historiography evaluates the historicity of particular ideas.

[Age]

I can't remember what'by default ' means.

'I' am not sure that 'you' ever knew, because as far as 'I' am aware it was not 'you' who ever wrote the words, 'by default', anywhere, here.

And, if 'you' had never asked "gary childress" to clarify what it actually meant when it used those words, then 'you' would never know, for sure, what they meant, exactly, as well.

However, I thought the Israelites were God's chosen people because God first chose them to be the people who received the Mosaic Law and upheld the Mosaic Law through all their wanderings.

Again, 'one' saying any thing like, 'i, or we', are 'the chosen one', by some thing', never ever means that 'the thing', actually even exists, nor that 'they' are any so-called 'chosen one/s'.

Also, God, Itself, would never ever choose one human being, nor any human beings, over one or any other ones. Full stop.

It's a matter of historical fact that the Mosaic Law has been influential in the formation of Judaism, Judeo Christianity, and Islam

It is also a matter of historical fact that each and every human being made up and created 'law' has been influential in the formation of some thing or another.

Also, and by the God never ever made up nor created any 'law' at all that you human beings should follow nor abide by.

However, and obviously there is a Universal Lore in which if one or any do not follow and abide by, then there would be negative consequences.

Ideas, Age, are influential. Stories of man's past all tell of influential ideas. Academic historiography evaluates the historicity of particular ideas.

Out of curiosity what has any of 'this' got to do with what I have said and written, here.

[iambiguous]

https://youtu.be/sEtMIm0ngag?si=DcQ6gmtQeUBoSbuI

Your challenge: to fit God into all this.

[iambiguous]

...the problem of evil doesn't go away when one opts for Atheism; rather, what one has to end up doing is essentially doubting that evil exists at all -- in other words, one has to doubt that there even IS a problem of evil, since there are no longer grounds for anything to be objectively identified AS "evil." Good and evil become empty value-judgments, unanchored from any objective truth about how things are.

One way to make the "problem of evil" go away [at least "in your head"] is to convince yourself that in a No God universe, human interactions are "beyond good and evil". Then the part where Christians insist as well that in a No God universe, morality is not even possible. Of course, some who do argue this insist that Atheism then becomes a proper noun:

"The difference between common and proper nouns is that common nouns refer to general things (like "a city" or "a mountain"), and proper nouns refer to specific, named things. Proper nouns are always capitalized, and common nouns are only capitalized at the beginning of sentences."

In other words, Atheism can only be encompassed as those who do capitalize it define its meaning. Go ahead and ask them.

Also, I have yet to come upon an atheist in possession of either omniscience or omnipotence. Whereas the Christian God is said to encompass both. Thus, there is no evil He is not aware of. And there is no evil which he does not have the power to put an end to.

Instead, in regard to things like "acts of God" here on planet Earth, He is said to be in possession of "mysterious ways". And there is apparently nothing too ghastly to be included here. Not even extinction events themselves.

But I think the problem of evil is actually very serious -- and I sense that you do, too. Atheism proves completely dusty and empty on that question, however, and for me, that's a huge blow against Atheism.

And those who argue this go about actually demonstrating it....how? And, again, they can reject atheism because of this but that doesn't change the fact that only a God, the God, their God actually possesses both the knowledge of all evil and the capacity to put an end to it.

Any credible worldview should at least have some reasonable attempt to explain why the world is so contrary to us, so dark sometimes, and why you and I struggle with our own demons...for we are not free from that darkness, are we? We find it both inside and outside.

This is the part where some Christians broach the Devil. As though an all-knowing and all-powerful God cannot just squash him like a bug. Or the part where any number of these true believers -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- include Christians themselves among those mere mortals who are damned.

Just out of curiosity...

You're not a Christian and it's Judgment Day. You explain to the Christian God that you were indoctrinated to believe in another God as a child and that over and over and over again as an adult all of your experiences reinforced this belief.

Are you still doomed, or does the Christian God take this into account. A loophole as it were?

[promethean75]

No, that's not how it works. Rather, your god sends a rescue team into heaven to extract you before the Christian god sends you to hell.

So if you're a Muslim or a Hindu or a Greek and are before the magistrate about to be sentenced, Allah or Shiva or Zeus will send the extraction team in to get you the fuck outta there.

[Belinda]

Iambiguous, evil exits as pain, suffering, loss, grief, unreason, stupidity, selfishness, and so forth. Evil does not exist as ontic substance but is grounded in experience .
God was invented to counter the experience of evil.

God is however not simply the opium of the people, but is the spearhead of the fight against all manner of existential evil. Weapons for the fight are reason,sympathy, freedom, and courage

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Iambiguous, evil exits as pain, suffering, loss, grief, unreason, stupidity, selfishness, and so forth. Evil does not exist as ontic substance but is grounded in experience .
God was invented to counter the experience of evil.

God is however not simply the opium of the people, but is the spearhead of the fight against all manner of existential evil. Weapons for the fight are reason,sympathy, freedom, and courage

Some need a God delusion to foster the illusion that they are making a difference. Gratitude creates opportunity for kindness. So I'm led to believe.

[Belinda]

Iambiguous, evil exits as pain, suffering, loss, grief, unreason, stupidity, selfishness, and so forth. Evil does not exist as ontic substance but is grounded in experience .
God was invented to counter the experience of evil.

God is however not simply the opium of the people, but is the spearhead of the fight against all manner of existential evil. Weapons for the fight are reason,sympathy, freedom, and courage

Some need a God delusion to foster the illusion that they are making a difference. Gratitude creates opportunity for kindness. So I'm led to believe.

It's no illusion that many specific evils can be at least ameliorated and at most banished. God is the impulse personified to combat an evil. It's personification you should be censuring.

[Belinda]

Iambiguous, evil exits as pain, suffering, loss, grief, unreason, stupidity, selfishness, and so forth. Evil does not exist as ontic substance but is grounded in experience .
God was invented to counter the experience of evil.

God is however not simply the opium of the people, but is the spearhead of the fight against all manner of existential evil. Weapons for the fight are reason,sympathy, freedom, and courage

Some need a God delusion to foster the illusion that they are making a difference. Gratitude creates opportunity for kindness. So I'm led to believe.

Gratitude when appropriate helps productive interactions.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Iambiguous, evil exits as pain, suffering, loss, grief, unreason, stupidity, selfishness, and so forth. Evil does not exist as ontic substance but is grounded in experience .
God was invented to counter the experience of evil.

God is however not simply the opium of the people, but is the spearhead of the fight against all manner of existential evil. Weapons for the fight are reason,sympathy, freedom, and courage

Some need a God delusion to foster the illusion that they are making a difference. Gratitude creates opportunity for kindness. So I'm led to believe.

It's no illusion that many specific evils can be at least ameliorated and at most banished. God is the impulse personified to combat an evil. It's personification you should be censuring.

I en't censurin' nuthin'. And surely the God delusion is personification? It's all a bit grandiose isn't it. God. Combat. Evil. I have enough trouble being grateful and kind.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Iambiguous, evil exits as pain, suffering, loss, grief, unreason, stupidity, selfishness, and so forth. Evil does not exist as ontic substance but is grounded in experience .
God was invented to counter the experience of evil.

God is however not simply the opium of the people, but is the spearhead of the fight against all manner of existential evil. Weapons for the fight are reason,sympathy, freedom, and courage

Some need a God delusion to foster the illusion that they are making a difference. Gratitude creates opportunity for kindness. So I'm led to believe.

Gratitude when appropriate helps productive interactions.

Gratitude is appropriate when good will is?

[Immanuel Can]

...the God delusion...

How ironic.

"The God Delusion" is the title of a book written by a man who knows Atheism's inherently rationally indefensible, and prefers to be called an "agnostic." MPC quotes him, oblivious to the whole problem with Atheism that Dawkins himself is too cunning to put his foot into...much of the time. He says both, preferring to be an "Atheist" when nobody is interrogating him, but retreating into "Firm Agnosticism," as he calls it, when he is challenged. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religi ... exist.html

He realizes the trap. How does one prove that God is a delusion? What's the evidentiary burden implied, the duty to supply evidence, claimed by the Atheist? It's that MPC (or Dawkins, in his less guarded moments) has exhausted all possible places, times and evidences that God could possibily exist.

Can a sensible person even expect a listener to believe he's done that? Of course not.

[Belinda]

Some need a God delusion to foster the illusion that they are making a difference. Gratitude creates opportunity for kindness. So I'm led to believe.

Gratitude when appropriate helps productive interactions.

Gratitude is appropriate when good will is?

Gratitude is nothing more than ordinary courtesy. It helps to smooth the path of communication.

[Belinda]

Gratitude when appropriate helps productive interactions.

Gratitude is appropriate when good will is?

Gratitude is nothing more than ordinary courtesy. It helps to smooth the path of communication. Trolls are a nuisance but we must bear their presence or have no free speech.