Islam or Jesus - Which one?!?!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OpinionatedB

If you don't want to be around HIM now...........

I don't suppose you're aware of how condescending you come across? But thanks for the reprieve.

I'm not aware of it, either. can you elucidate why being told to go your own way in peace is "condescending"?

a reply to: nenothtu

I'm not aware of it, either.

That doesn't surprise me.

can you elucidate why being told to go your own way in peace is "condescending"?

No. Go back and and read the conversation again. If you don't see it, I can't help you. But, like I said, I'm not surprised.

a reply to: windword

Well now, from over here in the peanut gallery, that looks an awful lot like manufactured hubris - offense taken intentionally, erroneously, yet forcefully by someone who is just intent on being offended, rather than desiring any discussion.

If you just want to be offended, I know some bikers not far from here that are far better at offending than any Christian I ever met - even the ones that truly ARE offensive.

a reply to: windword

Calm down. You'll blow a gasket. I'll get caught up on the thread shortly, and then maybe we can have a real discussion - or offensive. Whichever you like. I'm here to please.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OpinionatedB

I have no desire to "know" the biblical "HIM".

And there we have it! I can't think of any particular reason you should, and certainly no reason you should have your arm twisted into it. IT probably doesn't want to know you, either - that works out well, no?

Have a nice day, then!

originally posted by: nenothtu
a reply to: windword

Well now, from over here in the peanut gallery, that looks an awful lot like manufactured hubris - offense taken intentionally, erroneously, yet forcefully by someone who is just intent on being offended, rather than desiring any discussion.

If you just want to be offended, I know some bikers not far from here that are far better at offending than any Christian I ever met - even the ones that truly ARE offensive.

And now you, and everybody else, can see why I'm not surprised that you can't see a condescending, "self righteous", nanny nanny boo boo attitude when it's pointed out to you. This isn't my first rodeo with you or your wife. I'm not new to your presumptuous arrogance any more than I am to your wife's.

Do you feel better after having defended her against the big ole mean atheist now?

a reply to: windword

There are just some stories that are not mine to tell, but I assure you that the "unequally yoked" thingy was not a problem, at all. She never had to accompany me to church, since I don't go to one. She didn't have to work around my dietary laws, since I don't have any. She never got preached at, since I never mentioned my religion unless in answer to a direct question already asked. There were not crosses all over the house, or bibles laying everywhere. You had to really dig to find one of either. I had made a promise not to interfere with her religion in any way, and by God I stuck to that promise, sometimes at great pains and to great lengths to do so. Far from pushing my religion on her, she had to DRAG it out of me, sometimes resorting to subterfuge as only a woman can to extract an answer from me for this question or that. The phrase "pulling hen's teeth" comes to mind.

There is a reason she ever had those questions to begin with, a reason that came along long before I did, and that is the part of her story that is not mine to tell - I wasn't there for it.

BTW - for future reference, Jesus is not my God.

a reply to: nenothtu

You don't need to defend your marriage to me.

BTW - for future reference, Jesus is not my God.

My mistake. I was certain that I remembered you, and then again your wife, mentioning your Christian faith, from time to time.

originally posted by: OpinionatedB
a reply to: windword

No the child is not sinning, the child is learning right from wrong. What the Catholics do is their own ideas - its not taught in the bible to baptize children.

Yes, there is original sin. Basically, we are all in a state of being sinners. From the best of us to the worst of us we have all sinned.

.....

You just contradicted yourself re sin and your attempt to reconcile the contradiction failed. Christian concepts such as original sin and free will are simply ludicrous and no amount of word-twisting and Bible quoting will make them any less ludicrous.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: nenothtu

it doesn't matter what christians think. A man can be sincere, and still be sincerely WRONG.

Being WRONG is NOT a sin.

Of course it's not. I've not said anywhere that it is. I have a very focused and specific view of what constitutes "sin", and being wrong doesn't even approach it. Skinning cats or slapping the guy down the street doesn't even come close to it, either.

Would YOU think a person is responsible for an action over which they had no control - accountability without authority?

Moi? Of course not! But that's exactly what Original Sin is.

Well, we have very different views of what "original sin" is, then. I got mine out of the Bible - where did you get yours from? Although the law does it every day, requiring responsibility from someone without the authority to affect the outcome is illogical in extremis - how can someone be responsible for something they have no control over, to fix it or change it?

Sin is a religious term that is defined as those things that defy a religious code or law. I personally don't believe in such a thing as "sin".

Well we DO have very different views of what constitutes "sin" then! Mine doesn't depend on any religious law or code. I'm curious - where did you get your definition from?

Therefore I strongly disagree with you here:

nenothu said:
"Humans are incapable of doing any objective "good", left to their own devices. All of the "good" that people think they are doing is entirely subjective - what is "good" for them isn't necessarily "good" for another.

In order to determine if it is objectively "good", they would have to view it from a distance, a vantage point outside the self.

Humans can't do that. Leaving the self to take a peek would kill them dead, cease their existence. They would no longer be their "selves".

I don't doubt that you disagree with that - but there is no religious law or code involved in it. It's just basic logic coupled with observation of nature. It doesn't even require the existence of any gods at all.

There's no such thing as objective good. Everything, good, bad or in between, is all subjective.

What an odd concept, but one I wrestle with every day, since it is espoused by just scads of people who think they know what is "good" for me, without ever once asking for my input in the matter. Their "good" is most definitely not My "good", and they sometimes get set on their asses for thinking it is.

If your "good" and my "good" are at odds, then there is NO "good" without impartial objectivity. If there is no objective good, then there is no good at all.

If there is no good at all, then of course no one can do "good".

Humans do have the ability to foresee and plan from a distance, a distance that is so far off that it outlives us. That's what we call civilization, and mankind did it, and it is "good".

No, humans don't. One cannot foresee the unforeseeable. Humanity is not composed of "prophets", whether religious or secular "prophets". We don't even know what the world will be like tomorrow when we wake up, much less what it will be like generations from now. There is no way to plan for that, at all. Humans absolutely cannot do what you claim here. Humans can plan on contingencies, but those contingencies may get shot all to hell with a single roll of the dice.

The "goodness" of civilization is also subjective, a matter of opinion, and therefore not "good" at all. It merely "is".

Society requires people to lie all the time. Being honest is what get's people in trouble.

No.

No one, not even "society" or "civilization", can "make" anyone do anything they are not disposed to do. just ask my wife how that works.

I have never, in my entire life, gotten in trouble for being honest. If you have, you might want to take another look at the "goodness" of your society.

originally posted by: windword

Well, I was raised Pentecostal, Assembly of God. So I was also raised by horrified adults who thought infant baptism was an abomination. My Aunt, a Catholic Nun, (going to hell according to my mother) said it was to keep the babies out of limbo when they die. Why God puts babies who die in a place called limbo, and why sprinkling water on them saves them a place called limbo, is beyond me!

I passed an Assemblies of God church on my way home a little bit ago, and thought "maybe I'll give them a try" - after your report, maybe not. Thanks!

I cannot comprehend why God would put ANYONE in "Limbo", baby or adult - nor can I figure out why a mere sprinkling of water would affect either one. Sorry, I can't answer that one for you. Not my theology - it seems a little illogical to me. Maybe I'm missing something.

Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin; and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.
www.catholic.com...

Strange. "original sin" is not actually a sin? I wonder what it is then, and why they hang the "sin" label on it? maybe they think somehow that "sin" can be something other than "sin". If "original sin" is not an "actual sin", I can't even begin to fathom why anyone would need to be "saved" from nothing.

I guess unbaptized children that experience the wages of sin, death, are just out of luck!

Well, I'll make sure that none of my kids convert to Catholicism, then - just in case - for the grandkids, y'know?

Now, what IS it?

Sin is breaking a religious rule or law. Outside of religion, I don't believe sin exists. Social mores, accepted behavior, empathy, common decency, an inner moral compass, self introspection are all human attributes meticulously developed through trial and error, over generations and through aeons of survival and social evolution. In my opinion.

Thanks - I hadn't read your post above when I wrote that, so it's already been discussed, I guess. I will say that outside of a deity "sin" can't exist - "religion" optional, so on that score we kinda agree. It does seem that we may be getting "sin" and "good/bad" confused here, but that can be dealt with at more length later, I suppose.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: nenothtu

I'm not aware of it, either.

That doesn't surprise me.

can you elucidate why being told to go your own way in peace is "condescending"?

No. Go back and and read the conversation again. If you don't see it, I can't help you. But, like I said, I'm not surprised.

You may (or may not) be interested to know that we had a little conversation here, maybe kinda lively at times, over what led up to it - the whole thing about her misunderstanding entirely what you were saying, and thinking that YOU were somehow preaching kids into hell.

It was... enlightening.

That still gives me no insight into why being told to go in peace and do as you will is "condescending".

BUT - of course that probably still doesn't surprise you, and oddly, you lack of surprise at it doesn't surprise me, either.

Shall we move onward then?

originally posted by: windword

And now you, and everybody else, can see why I'm not surprised that you can't see a condescending, "self righteous", nanny nanny boo boo attitude when it's pointed out to you. This isn't my first rodeo with you or your wife. I'm not new to your presumptuous arrogance any more than I am to your wife's.

Do you feel better after having defended her against the big ole mean atheist now?

Are you an atheist? I didn't know that - perhaps I ought not have defended YOU to HER! Eh, I would have anyhow - I call 'em like I see 'em.

Any more labels you want to throw at me, or should we just move onward now?

a reply to: nenothtu

I don't really consider myself a hard atheist, but to Christians, I definitely am. I am a Humanist. I believe in (the) humanity (project) and its hope.

I don't believe in god or deities. I don't believe in a supreme being or a creator god. But I do believe in reincarnation and spiritual hierarchies. Go figure.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: nenothtu

You don't need to defend your marriage to me.

Nor would I - it's mine, not yours, to deal with. I was just explaining that my religious notions didn't sway her - the marriage part is just ancillary to that in regards to this discussion. At least you're one-up on some of the Christians and Muslims - they think that somehow we need to defend it to them... and they can bite me.

BTW - for future reference, Jesus is not my God.

My mistake. I was certain that I remembered you, and then again your wife, mentioning your Christian faith, from time to time.

My wife (and some few others) often claims I am a Christian, sometimes even making that claim to ME, but I'm not. The Christians won't have me, because I don't believe Jesus was God. That's been dealt with a little heatedly and at some length in another thread around here. You may have missed that one. No problem - no harm, no foul.

FWIW, the Jews won't have me, either, because I DO believe Jesus was the "Messiah", and the Muslims won't have me because, well, because I've quit them once already, and they are a bit put out by that, and, well, there's my whole view on the Mohammed character - not unlike Sahabi's view, and that gets them a little bit riled.

SO, basically I'm just another nobody, who belongs nowhere. I'm good with that.

a reply to: Tangerine

You don't believe in free will?

If YOU are not steering your boat, then who IS?

a reply to: windword

It sounds to me like you are an "atheist" in the same sense that my little Buddhist buddy was an "atheist" - i.e. not at all, neither "hard" atheist nor "soft" atheist.

Most of the atheists I've met (I know, not ALL - good lord, lets not have folks start picking nits over my "generalizations of atheists") don't admit of ANY sort of spiritual dimension... you just die, and POOF you're gone. Cease to exist. That's all she wrote for ya.

You know what?

I happen to believe they are right - that will be all she wrote for them. The End. PFZZZZT! Lights out. No Pearly Gates, but no Lake of Fire and gnashing of teeth, either. Just endless nothingness, of which they cannot be aware, or be bothered by enduring, having ceased to exist. Is that wrong of me? Am I "bad"? It's what they believe, it's what I believe, everybody happy!

In the bible is a verse that says something about a negative afterlife being "where their worm never dieth" - know why that is? Because it never lived there, and so cannot die there. Simples. Easy-peasy. Why has no one figured that out yet?

Maybe it's just more fun to fight over it.

a reply to: nenothtu

I happen to believe they are right - that will be all she wrote for them. The End. PFZZZZT! Lights out. No Pearly Gates, but no Lake of Fire and gnashing of teeth, either. Just endless nothingness, of which they cannot be aware, or be bothered by enduring, having ceased to exist.

But for the people that DO believe? They get the "Pearly Gates" and endless love?

Bah! I don't believe that at all. We are all here for our own personal journey. Not everyone has to have a spiritual experience to still be a spiritual being having a valuable physical experience, whether they understand it now or not.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: nenothtu

I don't really consider myself a hard atheist, but to Christians, I definitely am. I am a Humanist. I believe in (the) humanity (project) and its hope.

I don't believe in god or deities. I don't believe in a supreme being or a creator god. But I do believe in reincarnation and spiritual hierarchies. Go figure.

Nah, there's more needs said, I reckon.

I can't fault you for being a Humanist It is what it is, and you are what you are - as long as you're not forcing me to be (your ideal of) human, too, we're good. I'm not clear on the bracketed words, though, like "project". Why are they there at all? If there were a "project", who would be the planner - who would have set the project in motion?

Reincarnation I can sort of understand as not needing any deity (not that I would agree with that, just that I could sort of understand the idea behind it), but how on Earth (bad choice of phrase there - how 'bout "how in the dimensions"?) would a spiritual hierarchy exist under those conditions?

Whether you believe in any god or deities is no skin off my nose. This ain't the bronze age where I would have to worry about you coming along, setting your idol up in my temple to give you a "legitimate" claim to all my grain stores or anything like that. I gotta wonder about atheists, though - having no idols of their own, would they just lop off my head and then claim the grain because it was at that point unclaimed property? I dunno, and since this ain't the bronze age, I suppose I'll never have to find out, eh?

I don't want your god (or "not-god" or whatever) you don't want mine, and since we ain't got to fight over that, over just whose god it is, I don't see a problem between us.

a reply to: nenothtu

who would be the planner - who would have set the project in motion?

We are. We did.