Castin

People afraid of Orange Clowns don't need much more prompting to be afraid of anything else.

Why do right-wingers CONSTANTLY bring up Trump's skin color?

Pfft. Colorists.

lol!  I think they like to say it FIRST before anyone else can make fun of it.  They know it is embarrassing, so they take it off the playing field before anyone else can use it. 

His color is just so damn emblematic of the deeply fake person he is  ---  inside and out.

People afraid of Orange Clowns don't need much more prompting to be afraid of anything else.

even the name of this topic is stupid. I assume Hidin biden refers to him understanding and respecting the global crisis that is ongoing. Trump on the other hand constantly undermines it and holds super spreader events. 

I'll take the guy who takes a global crisis seriously over the one who is actively trying to make it worse. Hidin Biden is honestly a compliment in the current climate when the alternative is spreading a deadly virus. 

Life as a cancelled liberal is easy. All you have to do is go on Dave Rubin's show, or Steven Crowder's. Then you start a YouTube channel where you post videos complaining about cancel culture, and conservatives will flock to you and tell you how much more tolerant they are than liberals. You get to complain about how persecuted you are and make money doing it. It's a great gig.

Or, you could not, because you don't want to sell your soul to the open sewer that is YouTube politics.

OR, perhaps they believe "YHWH" IS REAL and just don't give a flying flip.

For example, the Catholic Encyclopedia states, "Formal dogmatic atheism is self-refuting, and has never de facto won the reasoned assent of any considerable number of men. Nor can polytheism, however easily it may take hold of the popular imagination, ever satisfy the mind of a philosopher."

Dawkins: "It is not clear why the change from polytheism to monotheism should be assumed to be a self-evidently progressive improvement."

I must say it isn't clear to me either. Do you believe polytheism is somehow less evolved than monotheism? If so, why? And if not, why do you think others do?

I would take the view that monotheism is the original and that polytheism is the later.  Yes, I know current thinking rejects this for all sorts of reasons.  But the Biblical picture commences with ONE GOD and humanity made in God's image.  As man learned more and more wisdom they started seeing gods everywhere and behind everything. And ironically, enough the gods started looking more and more like man. Hence - it went from ONE GOD with humanity made in God's image to many gods all made in the image of humanity and its variants.  

Oh the wonder of human wisdom. 

In Biblical Wisdom - Things devolve over time due to the taint of sin. And only after Jesus came - did the curse start to reverse - in respect of the way the world began to mature.  In this sense it follows the second law of thermodynamics but then in Christ - starts something wonderful and new. 

The wisdom of humanity - perceived in things like evolutionary theory - dismiss science - particularly the second law of dynamics - in terms of the bigger picture. They would rather talk about the ascent of humanity. Rather than its descent. Ah the wisdom of humanity. 

I liked doppleganger Castin more, she chatted with me and was friendly.

.

Castin, 

You act as though you're the only member that I am talking too!  Since when do you think you are that special that I am supposed to drop other dialog with other members and address your concerns?

To easily address your question, I have to believe in my serial killing Jesus as Yahweh God incarnate because of a glorious heaven WITHOUT any women!  We had to put up with the biblically  2nd class women while upon earth, and upon passing the Pearly Gates, we will not have to put up with them anymore because the scriptures stated ONLY MEN will be in heaven, praise Jesus! This alone is worth believing  in a brutal serial killer of the innocents!  Understand?

.

John the Baptist on the one hand tells us he didn’t know Jesus,but if this indeed be the case, then how did he recognize Jesus as “the one to come”.

How could you worship a God you believe is evil?

The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! This is he of whom I said, ‘After me comes a man who ranks ahead of me because he was before me.’ I myself did not know him; but I came baptizing with water for this reason, that he might be revealed to Israel.” And John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it remained on him. I myself did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain is the one who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I myself have seen and have testified that this is the Son of God.”

I am curious what you think of God's promise to never again wipe out humanity. Why do you think he made this promise? Why didn't he say "I'll do the same again if you ever get that bad again"?

I think that is a great question.  I don't know the answer. I can only speculate.  I think God could destroy the world if he wanted to. But I think that perhaps his plan from eternity was for something else for humanity.  After all, he did not destroy it completely.  He could have done that as well.  For me, I hope we never get that bad again. Sometimes I wonder of course. Yet - God I think through Jesus has done something amazing which has the power to change the world - so it does never need to get stage again. 

Jesus' intervention into this world has changed it significantly. People can try and deny his impact - but it is undeniable. What the world was like then compared to now is nothing short of miraculous.  Is the world perfect now? No, not even close. Yet compared to even a hundred years ago it is staggering. And to go back 2000 years ago - to world where only men had real power - and only then if you belonged to a particular nationality or nation. A place where woman had less rights than slaves and children even less so.  A place where life held no value unless you were a Roman Citizen. Where people literally threw you to the lions if you did agree with them.

A place where famine, disease, and poverty was widespread everywhere - not just in a few places.  

The world has changed dramatically since Jesus arrived 2000 years ago. I know people are skeptical - but history is full of pictures which reveal that the reason things changed is because people were serving their Lord Jesus.   And although skeptics will always question their motives - the history books reveal over and over the same things. 

Why did God not destroy the world again? I think his plan was Jesus. 

• The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma and said in his heart: "Never again will I curse the ground because of humans, even though every inclination of the human heart is evil from childhood. And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done."
  

MOST (but not all) people who call themselves "Atheist" try to make it clear that they are NOT saying there is NO POSSIBLE GOD(S). Instead, they're simply asserting that there is no compelling evidence of any SPECIFIC GOD(S).

Exactly my problem with them. You do not get to 'make clear' that the definition you operate under, isn't what you actually operate under. Then don't call yourself an Atheist.

Atheist always fall back on 'AGNOSTIC' criteria when it suits them.

No, ATHEISM IS THE REJECTION OF ANY GOD.

If someone isn't sure, or just says, 'well there is no proof I don't know' then they are agnostic. To take the FAITH based belief that 'there is no creator' is just that, FAITH.

So, here's my question.

Do you have "faith" that NANABOZHO is real?

Do you have "faith" that NANABOZHO is fake?

Are you suggesting that both positions require equal "faith"?

Sorry old chap, that might have been what rational and reasonable people thought in the past, but it is not how it is anymore.  Today the landscape has changed. When you attack a person's beliefs you are attacking that person.  This is what is called progress.  This is what the entire cancel generation is pushing. This is the new truth. 

And people in this generation, when their beliefs are being attacked and ridiculed, are unable to separate themselves from the argument and their identity. Hence, why when Christians suggest that homosexuality is condemned by God as sin, that many gays and others are self-harming. And Christians when they pushback on this idea - are not listened too.  

But it works both ways.  It is not just a one way street.  

if you went further you would realize that he didnt debate my arguments about the logic of God

1. Everything God did in the Bible was for good reasons.
   
2. An action is good simply because the actor believes it is for good purposes.
   

I just don't see any point and as castin has already pointed out we are not getting anywhere and that does not make for entertaining discussion. 

Can't say I recall discussing Revelations 21:8, with any of my family members.

I recall by Dad mentioning once, that he didn't think Martin Luther had a very high opinion of Revelations.

Can't say I recall discussing John 3:18, with any of my family members.

And Can't say I recall discussing Mark 16:16, with any of my family members.

Eh, probably too much of a knee jerk reaction when I speak of 'all my family being such well loving, understanding Christians.

I imagine one of the reasons 'I'm an atheist is my family didn't focus on religion enough.

I recall our mother would encourage us to say our prayers each night early on, when we were together at a family meal we'd say grace, went to church a 'few times but not often.

Had kid Bible's early on, that they read with us.

Later on though, both the parents were busy working most of the time, and the religious conditioning fell off a fair bit. (Though I don't mean religious conditioning in a negative fashion)

Church ceased all together,

Mother was working usually, so the night time prayer fell off in time, for me anyway, but hey maybe third child is forgotten child. Rest of my siblings seem religious enough.

Religion really isn't something I discuss with them 'much, though I do at times,

Never told them I'm an atheist, feels awkward at times,

And again, I likely praise my family more than they deserve,

But it's the sentiment I get from them and their words, actions.

'Mostly/at times.

I'll let you know what they think about those references later, after I ask them.

so what

So I'm not sure what your point is.

so what? why does that matter

So you are no longer interested in arguing your position?

I am

Then proceed.

I have

Then perhaps respond to my points or failing that just a recap of your argument to date?

what points?

My family, as I take it view Christianity as the best path to living a 'good life, to being closer to God.

But I don't think they see it as a requirement to entering Heaven.

They have faith in a kind, loving, understanding, God, who possesses knowledge beyond their ken

That will in some manner answer for all that has occurred bad in the world,

That in some manner even the lost or fallen of humanity will be brought back into the light.,

Not dammed to some eternity of fire, smoke, darkness, and suffering.

Afterlife being a vague and mysterious thing, what.

I think they have faith that good people, even without faith in God, will be brought into the fold,

Even people who deny Gods existence.

They also don't profess to judge people's fate after,

Let God sort them out so to speak, I think.

much less that he married Mary Magdalene.

Isn't one of the requirements of being a rabbi is to be married?

Jesus is called Rabbi in conversation by Apostle Peter in Mark 9:5 and Mark 11:21, and by Judas Iscariot in Mark 14:45 by Nathanael in John 1:49. 

And wasn't there a direct instruction from god himself to " go forth and multiply"?  And wouldn't this then mean that  said rabbi/ Jesus also had children?

But none of this is answering the the question in the OP , is it?

I would say that it's supposed to be a way of being an example. God commands that His children be baptized, so Jesus is baptized. In the Dead Sea Scrolls, it is made clear that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and marriage is another important part of God's plan for His children. This is biased by me being raised Mormon, who support eternal marriage as essential to obtaining the highest degree of glory, so I'm not sure how true that is for other sects.

I don't hold to the Catholic position of immaculate conception.  I do take the view that Jesus was conceived by the Spirit of God. I don't think Jesus is half man and half God.  I think he is fully God and fully man. And yes, I understand that is problematic for many people.  As for Jesus being born with original sin or not, I have not yet formed a conclusion. I have traditionally believed he was not, taking the view that his Father somehow nullified original sin.  Yet, I am becoming more aware of the fact that Jesus had to be able to identify in every way as a human in all of their temptations. Not having original sin, means he is off to an advantage that others do not have. Yet, on the other hand, Adam was also created without original sin - so the comparison might be adequate since it is the contrast between the first and the final Adam which is significant in the primary sense. Nevertheless, the secondary sense is also relevant which is where I sit at the moment. 

This of course then raises the question in your last paragraph. If Jesus was born with original sin, the implication is that he was not truly sinless? I am not so convinced of that. Yes, I follow the logic because I would insist that people sin because they are sinners - not sinners because they sin.  Yet in Christian circles we do distinguish between the sin and sins.  I have had this discussion with Brother Thomas - although as I recall not once did he ever actually engage with the discussion. I think it went over his head as most of the stuff I write. Nevertheless - it is an important distinction. And one which I will have to explore more fully. Sin is the original sin. IT is the sin which I often label TREASON and is a generic covenantal sin of the entire human population. Sins on the other hand are our personal individual sins which we commit because we are sinners. 

Is it possible that Jesus was able to have original sin - that is - be identified with all of humanity in the generic covenantal sin of the human population, and not commit personal sins? Well the bible clearly says he was without sin. And this is also further demonstrated in the fact that he rose from the dead. Yet the further question of whether or not being born into original sin - even if he did not commit any person sins - still makes him sinful per se? And at the moment I would have to say IDK.  Hence I have not formed a conclusion in respect of whether he has original sin or not.   On this matter I am still seeking wisdom. There are many forks in the road as it were. Many of which I have not traveled down so far. Yet, like any one who knows how to read a book properly, I am suspending my judgment until I have understood the arguments.  Any person who reads a book and comes to a conclusion in the first chapter - has not properly read the book. And if they form a conclusion before they understand properly the arguments - I would say that they are insulting not only the author but themselves.  

Not really a fan of the book of Job. Not only does the Yahweh kill Job's children just to test Job he also completely misses the point of why that is an unacceptable thing to do as e evidenced by the fact that he considered replacement children to be  a suitable way to make up for killing the first ones. I understand it was an answer (one of many presented in the old testament) to the problem of suffering even arguably the best one since at least it isn't engaging in outright victim blaming but it isn't really a satisfying answer and it does basically excuse Job's abuser instead denying his right to even question his abuser.

Although I might note that I am not yet of the view to dismiss the fact that he might have been born with original sin. He was born of Mary - a human after all. Even if it is the case that he also conceived by the Holy Spirit.  I am still considering my view about that thought.  Yet it does not change my view about the fact that he JESUS was sinless whilst on earth - otherwise his resurrection would not taken place.   It was only because of this truth that we have the resurrection.