Study: Religion is Good for Kids
Offline Here's a study that shows a kids from families that regularly attend worship services have better social and learning skills than those who do not.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
- Login to post comments
Offline cj wrote:No, it is like someone says - I'll jump in front of the bus if you love me. If you don't love me, die, motha' die.
The bible never says that you will be saved unconditionally. There never is someone who will jump in front of the bus for you unless you profess undying devotion. This is blackmail, pure and simple.
We all do this to some extent. Mistakes were made but not by me - very interesting book.
I think you're confusing the love of Christ with faith. One does not have to reciprocate love if it is given...
But to say "You want to believe. And so what you perceive is what you feel supports your belief. " is a circumstantial ad hominem.
the circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
Offline
the circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.
When person X assumes person Y to believe something for some other reason than the reason than the reason provided by person Y, then claims that person Y is wrong because of the other reason provided by Person X, it is a circumstantial ad hominem. The problem with it is that it does not disprove the original premise. In this case, I was accused of believing something because I "want to believe" here and on numerous other occasions. This is almost classic example of the fallacy...
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
- Login to post comments
Offline Atheistextremist wrote:
the circumstantial fallacy applies only where the source taking a position is making a logical argument from premises that are generally accepted. Where the source seeks to convince an audience of the truth of a premise by a claim of authority or by personal observation, observation of their circumstances may reduce the evidentiary weight of the claims, sometimes to zero.
When person X assumes person Y to believe something for some other reason than the reason than the reason provided by person Y, then claims that person Y is wrong because of the other reason provided by Person X, it is a circumstantial ad hominem. The problem with it is that it does not disprove the original premise. In this case, I was accused of believing something because I "want to believe" here and on numerous other occasions. This is almost classic example of the fallacy...http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html
but the original premise is still based on your subjective interpretations and authority claims - not on anything it's possible to empirically know.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
Offline but the original premise is still based on your subjective interpretations and authority claims - not on anything it's possible to empirically know.
As far as I know, I'm basing what I've said something that is empirical....
But what does subjective interpretation and authority claims have to do with "wanting to believe" something? And to what subjective interpretations and authority claims are you referring?
And how do I know that you're not doing the same thing? In either case, this is impossible to know because you do not know the contents of my brain other than what I have written and vice versa. I have made no such claim that I "want to believe". This is only assumed and it is not empirical. I would be on the same sort of ground if I said that you don't want to believe something. Because I could pull the same fallacy, I have all the more reason to think that it really is a circumstantial ad hominem.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
- Login to post comments
Offline Brian37 wrote:BINGO,
I could not do to my x-wife what this literary character called "God" does to people whose only crime is not wanting to hang out with him.
I couldn't threaten her "If you love me, you stay with me" "If you leave me, I will hunt you down and beat the shit out of you".
How did you arrive at that conclusion? God is not going to "beat the shit out of you" for rejecting him. Judgment on God's part is because you sinned, not because you lack faith.
Brian37 wrote:It was because I loved her that I had to let go. It was because I knew she had the right to be herself that I let her go. And I didn't "let her go", I didn't posses her in the first place. I never saw her as something to be "mine".
There is no escape from this God in this respect. We are his possession, his property. We have no right to determine our own destiny. It is either heaven or hell and not a third option of neither.
God does not "own" you, rather he lets you go your own way. If you want to reject him, he does not stop you from doing this...
Brian37 wrote:Even the fake suicide by the Jesus character is absurd as a concept, "Look what I did for you"
How sane would people find it, if when my wife left me, I threatened to kill myself "Look at what I did to show my love for you"
It is pure selfishness and insecurity that causes this kind of thinking.
"Fake suicide"? Hardly. And Jesus didn't commit suicide... he was killed by someone else. Spin it as you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
Brian37 wrote:The god character is a childish tyrant who throws a fit when he doesn't get what he wants and then uses emotional blackmail to keep people in line.
It is the perfect manifesto for authoritarian rule. There is no advise and consent. You cannot vote this god out of power. You cannot punish this leader for things he refuses to explain.
The god of Abraham of all these holy books reflects the actions of a dictator, not a civilly elected leader.
Childish tyrant? Blackmail? Manifesto of authoritarian rule? A God who lets you choose as you will, is willing to die on your behalf even though you sinned, and does not force you to accept his provision does not sound like a authoritarian dictator to me.
But what does a "civilly elected" or "dictator" have to do with anything?
BULLSHIT
Your book clearly states what happens to people who go against God after they die. THAT is not a choice, that is tyrany. Outsourcing the pain to satan, just means the boss is delegating the torture.
And this isn't just bad guys who kill or muder Christians. He throws people in the same hell for simply picking the wrong god or in having no god. THAT is tyranny. Outside this mythological character, in real life, in pluralistic societies YOU do have a choice and you don't get murdered or tortured for dissent, much less tortured forever.
I cannot oust your boss according to you. I cannot kick him out and ellect a different god or simply have no god. THAT is not a choice.
That is the definition of a dictator(rule by one in which no arbitration is possible)
Your god is not moral it is nothing but "My way or the highway" and if you "chose" wrong even if it is the simple non criminal act of not wanting to be part of his club, you get punished for it.
You worship a dictator.
Kim Jong Ill doesn't have any problems with his citizens, as long as they keep their mouths shut, and when they do speak they praise him. He gives them two choices too.
Kim Jong Ill, "I'll give you "free will", you have two choices, it is up to you. You can worship me and I'll let you live. Or, you can speak ill of me or try to run from me, and I will kill you"
Your god is no different otherwise there would be no threats of hell and you would not be tortured forever for simply saying "I don't believe in you. or "I like this other club better" " I want to leave you and not spend time with you".
Civil humans don't threaten each other when they don't want to hang out with each other.
Your god uses threats of hell which is not morality, it is merely bullying.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
The particular form of punishments is not really my issue... it is what values a person instills in their children that is.
At the same time I certainly agree that there are some normative things that every parent should provide their children: education, food, shelter, clothing, love, care, protection, among other things. I'm not opposed to corporal punishments, but where punishment turns into abuse is a fuzzy line that I'm not sure I have a good answer for. I know how my parents did corporal punishment in that it was never in anger or haste and they always discussed the matter before and after the issue.
I'm not questioning your expertise either.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
C'mon. Stop being deliberately obtuse. Leviticus isn't talking about the transferrence of debt and you know it. It's about bequeathing a human being as a gift. Just like handing down a Grand Father clock or any other inanimate object that is devoid of rights.
Deliberately obtuse? I was drawing a comparison in relation to my previous assertion concerning modern day slavery...
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
You are in a profound state of denial....
......and you have an extremely low thresh hold as to what constitutes slavery.
My point - parents do not have the right to do whatever they think is "best" for their children and we are glad that this is so in some cases.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Wowzer1,
I was not saying we can determine moral issues with science, I was saying we should use the knowledge we have gained from science, ie objective investigation of how people actually behave and react psychologically, both individually and collectively, and what can be shown to cause actual physical and mental harm, to inform our personal judgements on what actions are 'bad', ie immoral.
EDIT: Our own personal judgements of what is 'right' or 'wrong' are, of course very important, but should inform ourselves how they compare to other peoples attitudes, in case we have very peculiar biases - we are known to be very poor judges of our own hang-ups. That has been established by many scientifically run tests.
This is far better than basing our ideas on morality on the ideas, intuitions, prejudices, taboos, etc of some particular set of people living in the Middle East a few thousand years ago. Ie the Bible.
Morality based on religion has no actual reference, no basis, beyond the subjective judgements of the followers of that particular faith.
Even if their God exists, there is no way to determine with certainty what such a being actually intends, since there is no objective way to determine what is a 'real' communication from such an entity, and what is simply the result of an over-active imagination.
And it is still an arbitrary judgement as whether such a being is 'good' or not, or is really ultimately concerned with our welfare, or just for some unfathomable purposes of his own.
It boils down to 'might makes right', if such a being exist, or to pure unconscious self-justification if it doesn't.
Whereas my approach has at least some objective validation. You have, ultimately, nothing but your own personal feelings.
As Red said, pornography is not inherently wrong, or necessarily exploitive of the people involved.
Your objections to 'fornication' are purely subjective. You are projecting your attitudes onto others without justification.
Your continuing attempt to justify the biblical attitude to slavery of all shades is pathetic, and sad.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Right... As general rule, I'd agree with this. But not everyone believes the same on particular issues as illustrated here in this forum. I for one would not want my children growing up thinking that any of the issues I've mentioned are right.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
I have no problem with this.
On what grounds is this "far better"
Unless the god was manifested in such a way as to communicate directly with the its creation... Christians call such a manifestation "Jesus".
You're pitching a false dichotomy. Christians (and theists more broadly) do not disdain the value of scientific research in relation to psychology and behavioral studies. And the overriding ethic applied is what Jesus said was one of the great commandments: love others, and in by doing so you fulfill the other great commandment: love God.
IMHO, pornography devalues the persons involved to little more than objects of lust... That and the adverse affects of pornography on families make it evil all the more.
Purely subjective in what regard?
I'm not trying to "justify" the biblical attitude to slavery, rather I'm trying to understand it, and my contention has been that many are quote mining in an effort to have a reason to reject the Bible. Also I think it is a straw man, as most of the conversation here has been focused on that issue while avoiding the other.
But I have laid out my reasons, and whether you accept them or not is really not my concern, but you have given me no reason to think that I'm wrong about how I think. Rather, mostly of what has happened is you've verified my contention that you are indeed quote mining by honing in on particular verses in particular books and preferring translations that only support your cause when other possible translations exist.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
You want your children to be carbon copies of you - not independent thinkers, correct?
I always wanted my children to think for themselves. I didn't ask for and don't want adult children who blindly believe what I believe.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
Of course I want my children to think for themselves. You're putting words in my mouth if you think I want my children not to think for themselves and blindly follow.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
So if you have a daughter who tells you, dad, I had an abortion and I didn't tell you because I knew you would argue with me. That is okay?
Or your son tells you - dad, I'm gay and I've known I was gay since I was a little boy. That is okay?
One of your children says - dad, I've been an atheist for years, I stopped believing that stuff when I was y years old. That is okay?
What are you going to do or say, dad?
You need not answer my rhetorical questions. I'm just wondering if you have thought of this before.
For me and my children, none of this was an issue. I will always love them, even the youngest who is now attending church regularly.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
In all cases, I will love my children. Love is not contingent upon what they say or do. I may very well not approve of their decisions, but that's not enough to cause me to stop loving them...
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
Because it has some objective basis, is clearly related to real indications of harm or potential harm being caused to others, whereas the alternative can cause harm to a person, but such considerations can be overridden by appeals to a 'higher' principle, based on the demands of an imaginary being.
Which is still an unprovable subjective concept. Really just another version of the same thing. And still no independent warrant for defining 'good' as what this being desires or commands.
What I object to is the very idea of the pronouncements of any entity, mortal or 'divine', overriding what can be objectively demonstrated.
And a god, even if he exists, does not necessarily deserve 'love'.
If the participants are ok with the activity, and sufficiently mature and adult to be fully aware of what is going on, I see absolutely no problem - it is all in your perception - definitely a purely subjective matter.
If a person's viewing/reading pornography is regarded as offensive by their partner, yes, that can be a problem, just as any other difference of opinion, and the issue is not peculiar to pornography, and not really a matter of it being pornography.
Maybe 'subjective' was not quite the best term.
Your objections all relate seeing 'fornication' as a form of adultery.
If someone does engage in sex while married to another, that is definitely a potential problem, if their partner is not aware of it and likely to be seriously offended at the idea. That is not an issue of 'fornication' being intrinsically wrong, it is a matter of breach of trust, of deception.
With regard to applying that idea to future spouses, that is a real stretch, and again would only be a problem if the act was concealed from an intended partner, and there was good reason to expect them to be offended by the idea that you weren't their first and only sex partner. Again, it is not a problem with 'fornication' per se. I doubt that many men or women these days would demand that their intended be a virgin. That concept would equally outlaw remarriage after divorce - do you also have a problem with that?
Or is it ok if I and any partner are committed to never getting married to someone else??
What about 'polyamory'? Do you have a problem with that? Where a group share partners freely?
I have pointed out where you can only support your case by ignoring of distinctions between terms, and other cases where you skated over my objections, but it is clearly fruitless to continue this... you have 'bought into' the bible, I haven't.
I have no wish to contest the sincerity of your position, and how meaningful it is to you.
But I also have a fully considered approach to Life, etc, coming from a more scientifically inclined viewpoint, and long and wide observation of the world and its cultures, including direct observation on all continents, and many countries: China, Egypt, Kenya, Namibia, Botswana, South America, Pacific Islands, Europe, Russia, Central Asia, even that peculiar nation, the US of A. From such a perspective, the Bible is such an incredibly narrow and limited basis to gain insights into reality.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I think you're painting a false dichotomy in doing so too.
I think Jesus is well substantiated and well proven in historical terms... IOW, I have good reason to think that Jesus is not "imaginary". And given this, I have reason to think that God did step into creation a speak directly to the created. If this is true, then the warrant is the being himself -- that is Jesus is the standard against which morality is measured. Of course, I don't expect you to buy that, but I do think given the content of what I think it true, it is warranted.
Jesus says that loving men is loving God. Whether or not this being deserves love is really not the issue so long as one is loving men.
I find that the only real acceptable form of sexual relationships is in the context of a marriage between a man and a woman. This would preclude any other form of sexual relationship including extramartial and polymarital arrangements. And I believe that having lustful thoughts toward another person would be included in this too. Divorce and remarriage is a tough issue and I think a lot of it depends on the reason for divorce in the time period between partners etc. Jesus says that a woman who divorces and remarries commits adultery. But I think this was spoken largely in the context of the the sanctioned "divorces" of the day, which was a form of legalized prostitution. Paul appeals to a sexual union between a man and a woman making them "one flesh" -- that is marriage. I have Christian friends that have varying understandings of this -- everything from divorced people should not remarry to mitigated forms of this. Whatever one thinks about the issue of divorce and remarriage, I think, as I said earlier, the only acceptable of sexual relationships is in the context of marriage.
The positions have been made... I don't care to rehash them either unless there is something new to add.
There's no good reason to see scientific research as something mutually exclusive from the Bible. Christians are not basing psychology and behavioral studies on the Bible... Science is good for diagnosing and treating patience with mental disorders. And insofar as I can tell, what the Bible says concerning how to treat other people is not contradictory to this.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
We all agree human love transcends religious dogma. I guess that's something.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Wowzer1,
I accept that there probably was a historical figure corresponding to the Jesus of the Bible, but there is NO evidence sufficient to justify the extraordinary claim that he had some direct connection or relationship with the imagined Creator being. Especially considering that the existence of that being as other than an idea in the minds of men is utterly lacking, and indeed difficult to reconcile with science.
'God' explains nothing, indeed it now is an idea requiring explanation itself, to reconcile it with other observations of the nature of 'Life, the Universe, and Everything'.
You quote statements claimed to be from this Jesus person as justifications for some of your 'moral' positions, including statements which I and many others profoundly disagree with.
That is an example of what I see as the evils of religious belief, and of a moral position to any extent based on the assertions of an authority figure. That is not morality, in my book. That is 'might makes right'.
EDIT: The fact that this set of beliefs has evolved into such a compelling memeplex (a relatively coherent set of inter-related ideas) to a major fraction of the human race, regardless of their intelligence, including yourself, so as to override much rational and more considered moral judgement, is why this site was established.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Christianity stands or falls on the extraordinary events surrounding Jesus, particularly the resurrection of Jesus. To me, this would be just another event if it was not for the theological implication of the event. The gospel of John, Romans, and parts of 1 Corinthians (particularly chapter 15) show the theological connections between with the events.
As far as the events, particularly the resurrection, if they could be reconciled with science, I don't think they'd be significant. In other words, they are viewed as significant because they defy natural explanations. Many of the conspiracy theories concerning Jesus' resurrection are these sorts of natural explanations.
Either God as a causal agent is the explanation for something or something else is. One does not have to posit God for every minutia though, and nor would I. But demanding an explanation for God insofar as I can tell is nonsense.
I never expected you to accept my justification in the person of Jesus, but I do not think it is a case of "might makes right" in the sense of a cosmic bully. Rather Jesus is the personification of truth as there is no separation between the essence and the being Jesus. But even more so, he exemplified it in his life and work. The ethic he taught was one of self-sacrifice and love. This does not have the mark of a "might makes right" based morality -- rather a morality motivated by love for others. For this reason I think he is a worthy person to emulate.
I haven't been offered a "much rational and more considered moral judgement" either. You keep pitching science as a means to ascertain information, but I don't think that this is mutually exclusive from Christianity and many Christians openly embrace science as means to better understand and treat people.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
The apostle Paul talked about the centrality of love to all things -- it is even greater than faith.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
If God cannot be explained, then positing 'God' as the ultimate explanation of existence is not an an explanation at all. So there is no justification for claiming that there is any such entity - there is simply no reason to posit the existence of such a being.
We do not have a confirmed or provable non-magic explanation for existence, but we do have various vaguely plausible scenarios, all of which are more arguable than the empty myth of 'God'.
The evidence of the nature of the Universe and the situation of life on earth is utterly incompatible with the deep involvement of a powerful and loving entity.
The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus is tenuous at best.
The god of the OT was definitely an arrogant, hateful, bully, or worse.
Assuming someone deserves to be treated as a source of moral authority because of their power does amount to 'might makes right', whether or not you perceive their directives or claims to be the actions of a 'bully'. If you deny that you are accepting their edicts because of their power or perceived status, then you are basically saying you find them comfortable with your moral viewpoint, which does not mean that they are justified, and suggests that they are not the origins of your moral outlook.
'Theological' connections and implications are utterly irrelevant to truth of anything - they are a giant logical fallacy, based as they are on unjustified presuppositions.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
will forgive us if we have no faith in his invisibleness but have love? Or do the rules change for him?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Not having faith is a rejection of his love. You're under no obligation to accept it.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
If God is the "ultimate explanation of existence" then how is it that he is "not an explanation at all"? That's non-sequitur...
You're pitching them as if they were mutually exclusive explanations. I have no problem accepting "non-magic" explanations as the methods God used to bring the world into existence.
How so?
I'd beg to differ. I think the evidence for the resurrection is rather robust and well substantiated.
But what about the god of the NT. I think, and the NT writers thought, they were one in the same...
But no more than the government you pay taxes to or parents to their children... perhaps even less so. If you're willing to call these authorities moral authorities by way of "might makes right", I think your perception is a bit of stretch -- perhaps an ad hominem. Otherwise, an ethic motivated by love is a far cry from "might makes right".
You're presuppositions about theology aside, theology grounded in historical fact makes it justified. Jesus dying and rising from the dead is void of meaning (in other words, why do it?) if the there is no purpose for it...
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
funny, Wows. The idea of some one killing you for not loving them is so junior high. The lord's scribe must have been a pimply little geek with thick glasses.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I think you've got it all wrong....
If someone jumps in front of a bus to save your life, it would be like getting back in front of the bus because you reject his act of love even though that person sacrificed himself on your behalf.
In the end, you both die.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
No, it is like someone says - I'll jump in front of the bus if you love me. If you don't love me, die, motha' die.
The bible never says that you will be saved unconditionally. There never is someone who will jump in front of the bus for you unless you profess undying devotion. This is blackmail, pure and simple.
You want to believe. And so what you perceive is what you feel supports your belief. We all do this to some extent. Mistakes were made but not by me - very interesting book.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
BINGO,
I could not do to my x-wife what this literary character called "God" does to people whose only crime is not wanting to hang out with him.
I couldn't threaten her "If you love me, you stay with me" "If you leave me, I will hunt you down and beat the shit out of you".
It was because I loved her that I had to let go. It was because I knew she had the right to be herself that I let her go. And I didn't "let her go", I didn't posses her in the first place. I never saw her as something to be "mine".
There is no escape from this God in this respect. We are his possession, his property. We have no right to determine our own destiny. It is either heaven or hell and not a third option of neither.
Even the fake suicide by the Jesus character is absurd as a concept, "Look what I did for you"
How sane would people find it, if when my wife left me, I threatened to kill myself "Look at what I did to show my love for you"
It is pure selfishness and insecurity that causes this kind of thinking.
The god character is a childish tyrant who throws a fit when he doesn't get what he wants and then uses emotional blackmail to keep people in line.
It is the perfect manifesto for authoritarian rule. There is no advise and consent. You cannot vote this god out of power. You cannot punish this leader for things he refuses to explain.
The god of Abraham of all these holy books reflects the actions of a dictator, not a civilly elected leader.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
So the scribe of the lord claims an immortal (unkillable) diety sacrifices himself for me but intends to kill me for not appreciating his 'death'.
Perhaps the lord was indulging in situational irony when he said he loved me...
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I think you're confusing the love of Christ with faith. One does not have to reciprocate love if it is given...
But to say "You want to believe. And so what you perceive is what you feel supports your belief. " is a circumstantial ad hominem.
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal
How did you arrive at that conclusion? God is not going to "beat the shit out of you" for rejecting him. Judgment on God's part is because you sinned, not because you lack faith.
God does not "own" you, rather he lets you go your own way. If you want to reject him, he does not stop you from doing this...
"Fake suicide"? Hardly. And Jesus didn't commit suicide... he was killed by someone else. Spin it as you want, but that doesn't change the facts.
Childish tyrant? Blackmail? Manifesto of authoritarian rule? A God who lets you choose as you will, is willing to die on your behalf even though you sinned, and does not force you to accept his provision does not sound like a authoritarian dictator to me.
But what does a "civilly elected" or "dictator" have to do with anything?
It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal