Discussion Thread from the Funny Anti-Religious Pictures thread.

[dpnice]

When you consider that if He had, the people would have stared, laughed, and gone looking for some sensible gods.

Even the Creator is limited by what people are willing to put up with. The history of ancient Israel is a testimony to how poorly they followed even the limited strictures actually handed down -- so while yes, history would have been different, it would have been different in that things would have been worse, not better.

This has just left me mystified. Is this not, in fact, what we have all been saying for so long? Assure me that you are not actually saying that God took the easy way out to make sure that it was easy enough for men to believe in him?

Surely your opinion that the world would have been worse is just that, an opinion, with no possible factual support.

 

[zoltanspawn]

And they're not the same religion. Each has a closed set of "data".

Hinduism is supposedly one religion, and it has no defined set of "data".

Idiotic. Stubborn ignorance. "Objectivity" my ass.

 

[Kulindahr]

This has just left me mystified. Is this not, in fact, what we have all been saying for so long? Assure me that you are not actually saying that God took the easy way out to make sure that it was easy enough for men to believe in him?

Surely your opinion that the world would have been worse is just that, an opinion, with no possible factual support.

"Easy way out"?

Obviously it wasn't easy, since the people of Israel didn't get along well with what He proposed. Apparently, what was given was pushing the envelope pretty firmly.

"Believe in Him"? The Torah wasn't given with that in mind at all. I have to wonder if you've read the Old Testament, really. Nothing about ancient religion had much at all to do with "believing" in gods; man's relationship to gods back then wasn't about belief at all, just about getting favors. In that aspect, the Torah was a radical concept with its notion that deity cared about people and would enter into a covenant with them, one just like kings entered into with vassals; gods were seen as capricious and unpredictable, needing to be bought off (bribed) to treat people well, who couldn't be counted on even to keep the world running in an orderly fashion without constant rituals and sacrifices or offerings.
Into that world came this wild notion that the Creator kept His creation running smoothly not because of anything men did or might do, but because He felt like it, that He would keep seasons and years and even ages running smoothly because that was just Who He was. That changed the issue between deity and people from one of people providing the right bribes/offerings or the world would stop behaving to one where that much could be counted on but where deity expected people to respond to Him (and one another) according to a contract that specified expectations and penalties.

So that the world would have been worse is just a matter of the historical record; only philosophers truly expected people to behave in any moral fashion, and everyone else would have just behaved -- in relation to others and to deity -- in whatever way benefitted them the most. That didn't get changed a huge amount by the Torah, but it brought the concept that people should behave morally and do good to others because that was what decent people did, not as a way to buy off the supernatural powers or incur favor with people who could benefit them. But it changed more radically with the New Covenant, with a switch from the contract with God not being just between Him and an entire people, but between Him and each individual. Thus Christianity invented orphanages to keep children from being homeless and thus prey for criminal elements, hospitals to care for those who couldn't afford doctors (oddly, compared to today's hospitals where a single visit can bankrupt people!), schools to teach children other than just those of the wealthy, and more.

 

[Kulindahr]

Idiotic. Stubborn ignorance. "Objectivity" my ass.

Um, Britannica and others call it one religion.

I guess Britannica is idiotic and ignorant.


But if it isn't one religion, then it's out of the running anyway, because there's nothing but a smorgasbord where people can pick and choose what pleases them. So since you're telling me it isn't one religion (contrary to sound authorities) and that it has no definite set of beliefs, then objectively it's irrelevant to any search for truth -- sort of like having a title for a novel, but there's no actual text to the novel, just a whole different sets of texts, so there's no way to tell what the plot is or how things move from a beginning to perhaps some end.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, if this describes you it tells why you don't listen at all when it comes to religion: you've got an a priori picture in your mind and you refuse to see anything that doesn't conform.

Kinda like the Tea Party in American politics.



See, I was raised by parents to be suspicious of anything automatically believed by large batches of people and not take anything without evidence. So I don't fit your stereotype.

But at least this image is honest: it puts the error in the person making the statement rather than projecting it on others.

 

[Kulindahr]

This one is interesting -- and an illustration of the reason literal translations can be problematic: idioms get ruined.

To the ancients, the bowels were where one's emotions, loyalty, and core attributes were located in the body. To moderns, it's the heart, so if you substitute "heart" for "bowels", the meaning comes out.

This is one reason so many scholarly pastors I've known refuse to allow anyone to use the King James Version in bible studies; with its literal bent and archaic terminology, it may as well be in a foreign language; using modern translations avoids all kinds of "WTF?" moments.

 

[Kulindahr]

Re: Funny anti-religious Internet pics

Slipped and left one here.

Not that I would be too worried -- since the forum heading clearly says it's for "discussion", keeping discussion out of a thread is ridiculous, so it shouldn't be my job to avoid discussion by putting responses somewhere else.

But I moved it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Oh, come on -- that's just infantile! Taking statements out of even the immediate context can make anyone look foolish.

 

[Kulindahr]

Seems a bit harsh!

Even when understood in historical/cultural context, which indicates this was a mob telling Elisha to die, it does seem harsh. I've heard it defended as being "self-defense", but there's no indication the mob intended anything more than insults and taunts.

I've read that the account bears marks of being an invented story to frighten kids from being disrespectful to prophets, but the arguments don't seem strong to me.

 

[zoltanspawn]

Um, Britannica and others call it one religion.

I guess Britannica is idiotic and ignorant.


But if it isn't one religion, then it's out of the running anyway, because there's nothing but a smorgasbord where people can pick and choose what pleases them. So since you're telling me it isn't one religion (contrary to sound authorities) and that it has no definite set of beliefs, then objectively it's irrelevant to any search for truth -- sort of like having a title for a novel, but there's no actual text to the novel, just a whole different sets of texts, so there's no way to tell what the plot is or how things move from a beginning to perhaps some end.

Um, here's the first two sentences of the Britannica entry on Hinduism.

Hinduism, major world religion originating on the Indian subcontinent and comprising several and varied systems of philosophy, belief, and ritual. Although the name Hinduism is relatively new, having been coined by British writers in the first decades of the 19th century, it refers to a rich cumulative tradition of texts and practices, some of which date to the 2nd millennium bce or possibly earlier.

Obviously, it's "out of the running" for you, but I would hope that genuinely thoughtful people would try to understand the nature of Hinduism as a religious phenomenon whether they accept its truth and worth or not. You are obviously not interested in understanding, merely vilifying to shore up the structure of belief that girds your brittle world view.

How hilarious that you whine and moan about all the ignorant attacks on your version of christianity, but arrogantly and casually turn around and practice the same shallow caricature on another religion. It's hypocrisy.

Although I'm not a Hindu, I'm impressed by how much Christianity and some sects of Hinduism have in common, more than you shall ever know, as you remain embowered in you intellectual provincialism.

 

[Kulindahr]

Um, here's the first two sentences of the Britannica entry on Hinduism.



Obviously, it's "out of the running" for you, but I would hope that genuinely thoughtful people would try to understand the nature of Hinduism as a religious phenomenon whether they accept its truth and worth or not. You are obviously not interested in understanding, merely vilifying to shore up the structure of belief that girds your brittle world view.

How hilarious that you whine and moan about all the ignorant attacks on your version of christianity, but arrogantly and casually turn around and practice the same shallow caricature on another religion. It's hypocrisy.

Although I'm not a Hindu, I'm impressed by how much Christianity and some sects of Hinduism have in common, more than you shall ever know, as you remain embowered in you intellectual provincialism.

Oh, bullshit -- I'm not making any caricature of Hinduism. I looked at it objectively and even from just the information you have given ruled it out of the running as a claimant to be divine revelation. I'm not "vilifying", I'm analyzing. And Britannica says exactly what I said it did, so there's no caricature involved.

Where this tendency to call analysis "vilification" arises I don't know, but to me it speaks of an immense insecurity in the face of being objective about things. I guess I'm not supposed to think so much as I'm supposed to "feel".

And there's nothing at all about what I've said that says I'm not interested in understanding, because none of this was about understanding -- that's a red herring you came up with. My only interest in any religions for most of my life has been whether they meet rational criteria for being divine revelation. Once it's evident that they do not, that question was answered. It says nothing about whether or not I have further interest in understanding them.

As far as a "brittle world view", it's hardly that -- it's a world view I'm driven back to whether I like it or not, on the basis of the evidence. A brittle worldview would be easily discarded.

 

[zoltanspawn]

And Britannica says exactly what I said it did, so there's no caricature involved.

Yes yes Dr. Kulindahr, what you say is true. Black is white. Now, let's take you back to the TV room and you can watch some fun Bible cartoons!

 

[johaninsc]

couldn't help it...

 

[Kulindahr]

Yes yes Dr. Kulindahr, what you say is true. Black is white. Now, let's take you back to the TV room and you can watch some fun Bible cartoons!

So when shown to be wrong, you go to insults.

 

[zoltanspawn]

So when shown to be wrong, you go to insults.

Shown to be wrong?

That's insulting.

I leave it to others to visit the linked article on Hinduism and decide which one of us is right.

 

[Kulindahr]

Shown to be wrong?

That's insulting.

I leave it to others to visit the linked article on Hinduism and decide which one of us is right.

"Major world religion", it says -- singular.

Just like Christianity -- singular.

And I already noted that it doesn't matter if it's singular or plural, because either way there's no objective set of writings, so there's no rational way for it to have any claim to truth; it's a smorgasbord.

 

[frankfrank]

EVERYBODY IS GOING TO HELL.

1. Christianity asserts that your soul goes to Heaven or to Hell in the afterlife. If you do not believe in Christ, and accept Him as your Savior, you won't go to Heaven. Therefore, that means the soul of a non-believer goes to Hell.

We can't work our way to heaven or claim to be without sin (1 John 1:8). Instead, we must humbly submit to God, turn from our wrong behavior, and turn to Christ for salvation.
- FOCUS ON THE FAMILY

2. Those who do not believe in Muhammad spend the afterlife in Hell. Furthermore, belief in another religion, even another monotheistic one which has a deity who is not Allah, will go to Hell.

Say (O Muhammad) unto those who disbelieve: Ye shall be overcome and gathered unto Hell, an evil resting-place.

Qur'an 3:12
************************
And whoso seeketh as religion other than the Surrender (to Allah) it will not be accepted from him, and he will be a loser in the Hereafter.

Qur'an 3:85

3. There are only four possible types of beliefs in the world, vis-a-vis these two major religions:

a. People whose beliefs are both Christian and Islamic. Very few, if any, such people exist to begin with. Even if they do exist, they are doomed to Hell according to scripture from Qur'an 3:85. Furthermore, there are a number of Christian religions, such as some Baptist sects or Jehovah's Witnesses, which proscribe belief in other religions. Therefore, all of 3a. souls will go to Hell.

b. People whose beliefs are neither Christian nor Islamic. Of course, ALL such souls will spend their eternities in Hell, both because of Qur'an 3:12 AND because of scripture in many Christian religions for non-believers.

c. People who observe Islam and not Christianity: Many Christian religions automatically doom their souls to Hell, because they haven't accepted Jesus Christ. Therefore, all 3c. souls go to Hell.

d. People who observe Christianity and not Islam: Qur'an 3:12 condemns to Hell all those who do not believe.

4. Therefore, because it is not possible for anybody not to belong to one of the groups in 3. above, ALL souls go to Hell. So, to all the naysayers about global warming, don't say that I didn't tell you so, LOL.

********************************
The following is supposedly an actual question
given on a
University of
>Washington chemistry mid-term. The answer by one
student was so
"profound"
>that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the
Internet, which
is,
>of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying
it as well.
>
>
>
> Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off
heat) or endothermic
>(absorbs heat)?
>
>
>
> Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs
using Boyle's
Law
>(gas cools when it expands and heats when it is
compressed) or some
>variant.
>
>
>
> One student, however, wrote the following:
>
>
>
> First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is
changing in time. So
we
>need to know the rate at which souls are moving into
Hell and the rate
at
>which they are leaving. I think that we can safely
assume that once a
soul
>gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls
are leaving.
>
>
>
> As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's
look at the
different
>Religions that exist in the world today. Most of
these religions state
that
>if you are not a member of their religion, you will
go to Hell. Since
there
>is more than one of these religions and since people
do not belong to
more
>than one religion, we can project that all souls go
to Hell.
>
>
>
> With birth and death rates as they are, we can
expect the number of
>souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look
at the rate of
change
>of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that
in order for the
>temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same,
the volume of Hell
has
>to expand proportionately as souls are added.
>
>
>
> This gives two possibilities:
>
>
>
> 1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the
rate at which
souls
>enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell
will increase
until
>all Hell breaks loose.
>
>
>
> 2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the
increase of souls
in
>Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop
until Hell freezes
over.
>
>
>
> So which is it?
>
>
>
> If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa
during my Freshman
year
>that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep
with you, and take
into
>account the fact that I slept with her last night,
then number 2 must
be
>true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and
has already
frozen
>over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell
has frozen over,
it
>follows that it is not accepting any more souls and
is therefore,
>extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the
existence of a
divine
>being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept
shouting "Oh my
God."
>
>
>
> THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"

 

[dpnice]

.......................... you go to insults.

As you also tend to insult/belittle members you loose all credibility claiming that others use them to cover up the weakness in their argument.

 

[dpnice]

........................ I looked at it objectively and even from just the information you have given ruled it out of the running as a claimant to be divine revelation. ..............................
.............................................

But isn't this exactly what you are refusing to allow us to do; look at The Bible objectively and from the information given rule it out as being divine revelation?

 

[star-warrior]

Um, Britannica and others call it one religion.

I guess Britannica is idiotic and ignorant.


But if it isn't one religion, then it's out of the running anyway, because there's nothing but a smorgasbord where people can pick and choose what pleases them. So since you're telling me it isn't one religion (contrary to sound authorities) and that it has no definite set of beliefs, then objectively it's irrelevant to any search for truth -- sort of like having a title for a novel, but there's no actual text to the novel, just a whole different sets of texts, so there's no way to tell what the plot is or how things move from a beginning to perhaps some end.

Um, here's the first two sentences of the Britannica entry on Hinduism.

Hinduism, major world religion originating on the Indian subcontinent and comprising several and varied systems of philosophy, belief, and ritual. Although the name Hinduism is relatively new, having been coined by British writers in the first decades of the 19th century, it refers to a rich cumulative tradition of texts and practices, some of which date to the 2nd millennium bce or possibly earlier.

Obviously, it's "out of the running" for you, but I would hope that genuinely thoughtful people would try to understand the nature of Hinduism as a religious phenomenon whether they accept its truth and worth or not. You are obviously not interested in understanding, merely vilifying to shore up the structure of belief that girds your brittle world view.

How hilarious that you whine and moan about all the ignorant attacks on your version of christianity, but arrogantly and casually turn around and practice the same shallow caricature on another religion. It's hypocrisy.

This is what Britannica has to say

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christianity

Christianity, major religion, stemming from the life, teachings, and death of Jesus of Nazareth (the Christ, or the Anointed One of God) in the 1st century ad.

Ooo looky there, religion, in the singular.

So all the various strains of Christianity is just one religion? Fred Phelps Westboro Baptist Church is just Catholicism isn't it? Both believe in Jesus, says people are born out of sin, say people will go to hell etc. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck.

Smorgasbord? Stoned any people lately for wearing clothing made of different materials? I hear there are many parents turning their kids out for disobeying them, but the biblical thing to do is to have them killed. How about all those people who aren't observing the sabbath, why isn't there a bloodbath every Sunday? Pick and choose which bits to believe? Smorgasbord?