Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).
New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?
That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).
A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.
It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!
Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.
No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?
Some educated Christians do see this connection --it's even taught in adult Christian education classes in some churches. They may not see Christianity that way their parents or grandparents did, but they are still solid Christians.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).
New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?
That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).
A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.
It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!
Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.
No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?
Many of your recent posts have been removed. Pretty solid evidence of childish trolling. You've provided zero evidence, at least on this thread.
That's all I'm going to bother to say to you. Done here.
Don't feed this troll.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).
New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?
That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).
A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.
It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!
Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.
No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?
Some educated Christians do see this connection --it's even taught in adult Christian education classes in some churches. They may not see Christianity that way their parents or grandparents did, but they are still solid Christians.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).
New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?
That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).
A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.
It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!
Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.
No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).
New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?
That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).
A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.
It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!
Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.
No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?
Many of your recent posts have been removed. Pretty solid evidence of childish trolling. You've provided zero evidence, at least on this thread.
That's all I'm going to bother to say to you. Done here.
Don't feed this troll.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).
New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?
That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).
A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.
It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!
Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.
No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).
New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?
That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).
A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.
It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!
Atheists have supplied to evidence to show that religion is bogus. Why do Christians fail to see the connection between Jesus/God/resurrection/virgin birth and pagan beliefs? It's all there. Furthermore, moving from polytheism to monotheism was a political move, as it centralized control over the masses, and the bible itself mentions the polytheistic practices of the Israelites.
No, you can't disprove God, but you can find evidence that supports the points I made above. I fail to see how using evidence is childish behavior. Who's the one doing the name calling and failing to produce evidence to support a claim?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).
New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?
That was my post. I didn't say that I've read books that "convinced me it's true." Instead, I've read authors like Borg, Crossan, and Spong who are critical of major tenets of my religion (Christianity).
A key point here is that these authors and/or theologians aren't trying to convince the reader that God does or does not exist. Instead, they're arguing about points that are foundational in many modern-day churches' theologies, like the trinity or crucifixion. Sometimes I find their arguments convincing and other times I don't. Often they disagree with each other.
It's a game for wonks, and I happily cop to being a wonk. However, it's a million times more interesting than the trollish gibberish you see on DCUM--the unthinking repetition of stuff the troll has seen elsewhere, along the lines of "Jesus never existed" and snide quips about sky fairies. Why trolls think that childishness would convert any thinking person to atheism is beyond me!
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).
New posters to this thread. This is interesting. What's your religion and can you point me to some of these sources you consider to be most powerful in convincing you it's true?
Anonymous wrote:
OK, many of us religious folk don't think you have to "turn over" your intellect to believe. PP may think that. But lots of us engage in tons of critical study of our religions, reading alternative POVs and historical research. I certainly have done all of this (and yet I still believe, go figure).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
LOL, that's like an alcoholic saying that he has self control just like anyone else, except "it's turned over" when he got drunk over, and over, and over.
Not the pp.
Your simile is very lame and not at all relevant.
Reaching, are we?
It's not a simile, it's an analogy. How can you trust yourself to understand what is being discussed when you have issues with the difference between a simile and analogy?
And of course, my analogy is very relevant. Saying that you "turn over" your intellect, as if that somehow makes it okay, is exactly the type of excuse that alcoholics, drug abusers, and people with other types of destructive personality traits use to justify their behavior. It's shameful, intellectually dishonest, and should be called out for what it is.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Morals and values don't come from religion. They come from empathy. The "Golden Rule" of treating others as you would have them treat you is not something that Judeo-Christian faith can claim to own, it's far older, it comes from human self-awareness.
I have Aspergers and therefore little empathy. I do, however, have morals and values that come from my faith.
And without your faith, you'd have no morals and values?
Correct. I don't have the human self-awareness and empathy you referenced. I need "rules".
Does it have to be religious rules? How about societal rules, like do not kill, do not cheat, do not dump your garbage in the street, do not go 60 in a 30 mph zone?
How about the secular rules under Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao? Because that worked so well.
They were't secular rules -- they were totalitarian rules. The US has secular rules, which overall, have worked out much better than religious or totalitarian rules
Yikes. Totalitarianism is compatible with both secular (communist Russia) and religious (Iran, ISIS) regimes.
It's perfectly possible to be both secular AND totalitarian rules.
Unless you can point us to religious bases for Pol Pot, Stalin and company.
it is the totalitarian rules, in a secular or religious state, that cause the problems. England has a state church - the Church of England - but other religions are allowed exist.
You said they weren't secular. Bolded it for you. They are secular.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Morals and values don't come from religion. They come from empathy. The "Golden Rule" of treating others as you would have them treat you is not something that Judeo-Christian faith can claim to own, it's far older, it comes from human self-awareness.
I have Aspergers and therefore little empathy. I do, however, have morals and values that come from my faith.
And without your faith, you'd have no morals and values?
Correct. I don't have the human self-awareness and empathy you referenced. I need "rules".
Does it have to be religious rules? How about societal rules, like do not kill, do not cheat, do not dump your garbage in the street, do not go 60 in a 30 mph zone?
How about the secular rules under Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao? Because that worked so well.
They were't secular rules -- they were totalitarian rules. The US has secular rules, which overall, have worked out much better than religious or totalitarian rules
Yikes. Totalitarianism is compatible with both secular (communist Russia) and religious (Iran, ISIS) regimes.
It's perfectly possible to be both secular AND totalitarian rules.
Unless you can point us to religious bases for Pol Pot, Stalin and company.
it is the totalitarian rules, in a secular or religious state, that cause the problems. England has a state church - the Church of England - but other religions are allowed exist.
You said they weren't secular. Bolded it for you. They are secular.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Morals and values don't come from religion. They come from empathy. The "Golden Rule" of treating others as you would have them treat you is not something that Judeo-Christian faith can claim to own, it's far older, it comes from human self-awareness.
I have Aspergers and therefore little empathy. I do, however, have morals and values that come from my faith.
And without your faith, you'd have no morals and values?
Correct. I don't have the human self-awareness and empathy you referenced. I need "rules".
Does it have to be religious rules? How about societal rules, like do not kill, do not cheat, do not dump your garbage in the street, do not go 60 in a 30 mph zone?
How about the secular rules under Stalin, Pol Pot or Mao? Because that worked so well.
They were't secular rules -- they were totalitarian rules. The US has secular rules, which overall, have worked out much better than religious or totalitarian rules
Yikes. Totalitarianism is compatible with both secular (communist Russia) and religious (Iran, ISIS) regimes.
It's perfectly possible to be both secular AND totalitarian rules.
Unless you can point us to religious bases for Pol Pot, Stalin and company.
it is the totalitarian rules, in a secular or religious state, that cause the problems. England has a state church - the Church of England - but other religions are allowed exist.