Total posts: 3,943
Posted in:
-->
@Kadin
If Pastafarianism contains a large and devout enough base of adherents, I don't see a reason 'not to treat them as a religion.
Even if it 'doesn't have a large and devout enough base of adherents, I might tilt my head a bit to the side, when confronted with such an individual, but it's not hard to respect their religion, to a degree. Maybe.
Problem arises same as marriage, that there are many aspects of governmental policy, financial, legislation, that effect such claims. Maybe.
. . .
Look at it this way,
Let's say The Prohibition Party still exists, I'm not sure if it does.
It'd still be a 'party, but we don't view it the same as we'd view the Democratic or Republic parties, maybe.
. . .
When are bell bottomed pants a current fad, or not.
. . .
Maybe it's a question of organization and power.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Not all Christians consider Jesus 'God though, my family certainly didn't.
Most Christians believe that Jesus was both human and the Son of God.[13] While there has been theological debate over his nature,[t] Trinitarian Christians generally believe that Jesus is the Logos, God's incarnation and God the Son, both fully divine and fully human. However, the doctrine of the Trinity is not universally accepted among Christians
Additionally, regarding Muslims, I 'think, Jesus is
Created:
-->
@oromagi
I think about the fact that for the majority of the Christian Era, the majority of Christians were not literate. All those images, all that artwork was true illustration- illumination and exaltation of the subject in a voice no sermon might match. I think that if a religion can't keep up with trends in art, it tends to become less relevant.
I think there's truth in those statements.
Would you call yourself an Iconoclast?
Well, I wouldn't say I attack cherished beliefs or institutions.
Nor do I have an interest in destroying images used in religious worship.
Nor in the past, for either of those actions.
I 'can appreciate a movement which seeks to abolish the veneration of icons and other religious images.
But I'm an atheist these days, with no aspirations of improving the world at large.
I'm mainly after my own enjoyment, though there are 'moments I'm helpful.
I'm not interested in. . . pursuing charitable work.
Publicly volunteered a 'bit in Scouts, never made it to Eagle though.
By the time I came into my own independence in life, I was an atheist.
. . .
Not that an atheist can't work to help others, be charitable.
But I'm not that kind of atheist.
Returning to the question, no, I don't think I'm an Iconoclast, though if I was religious I probably would be.
Not the the point of 'forcing my ideals on others, or destroying property, though.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Q: How do comic books make religion less strong?
Well, as I see it, it makes it less 'true.
For instance, there's a number of YouTube creators that I enjoy, who use props and artistry in how they explain their points. It makes me suspicious when appeals to emotion are used rather than factual statement.
I'd rather religion just be stated for what it is understood to be, rather than making garish imagery in comic books, to appeal to children by 'show, rather than truth.
And if the 'truth isn't enough, ah well.
My view is, that comic books trivialize religion, I don't much care for religious artwork either, statues of Jesus on the Cross, Crosses themselves, stained glass images of Saints, murals on ceilings.
Q: How do comic books mock one's religion?
Perhaps it's the same vein as depictions of Muhammad, though that's a 'guess on my part.
I don't actually recall 'why they object to that.
But comics for instance, are stepping stones to 'other media, such as The Exorcist (1973).
Artistic depictions of religion start to seep into the public mindset, corrupt the source material, so to speak.
Even bad from an atheist perspective, 'I think, a drop of ink isn't so bad as a bucket of ink mixed into water.In this metaphor, what do the ink and the water represent?
I suppose the ink is religion, and the water media.
Was really just an offhand thought.
Created:
-->
@Barney
@oromagi
Involving religion in popular media, appears to dilute religion. Seems to me.
Which seems 'bad from a theist perspective, I'd say. Since it makes a mockery of one's religion, confuses it's meaning.
Even bad from an atheist perspective, 'I think, a drop of ink isn't so bad as a bucket of ink mixed into water.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Baháʼí Faith,[1] alongside Samaritanism, Yazidism, Druzism, and Rastafarianism,[1] are considered Abrahamic religions because they all accept the tradition of the God (known as Yahweh in Hebrew and Allah in Arabic) that revealed himself to Abraham.[1] Abrahamic religions share the same distinguishing features:[2]
- all of them originated from Semitic religions in the geographical region of the Middle East;[2]
- all of their theological traditions are to some extent influenced by the depiction of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible;[2]
- all of them trace their roots to the patriarch Abraham.[1][2][3][4]
The Abrahamic God in this sense is the conception of God that remains a common feature of all Abrahamic religions.[4] God is conceived of as one, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and the creator of the universe.[4] God is always referred to as masculine only,[4] and further held to have the properties of holiness, justice, omnibenevolence and omnipresence. Proponents of Abrahamic faiths believe that God is also transcendent, meaning that he is outside space and outside time and therefore not subject to anything within his creation, but at the same time a personal God, involved, listening to prayer, and reacting to the actions of his creatures.
Though I think it depends on 'who you ask.
I don't think it's a case of 'brothers, myself.
I 'also think the whole Lucifer thing is mostly overhyped modern invention, blasphemy, ignorance.
But I'm pretty ignorant myself, more trouble than I care for, to go reading old books, and other old books, to gain clearer understanding or make a point. As I don't believe in an afterlife or the supernatural myself.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Ok. But let's not talk about others. Let's talk about you. What is your interpretation of god, religion and how one ought to live?
My interpretation of God, is that God is not something I usually consciously think about or incorporate into my day to day life, or believe in. (Going by some interpretations of God)
My interpretation of Religion, is that it can be found by groups or individuals, but is not something I usually consciously think about or incorporate into my day to day life. (Going by some interpretations of Religion)
My interpretation of ought, I don't there is an objective 'ought to live, I like calling myself a nihilist, but I can't deny that nature and nurture drives us along subjective paths in which we have preferences of ourselves and others.
Do you think it is inconsistent with your interpretation of god and freedom of speech?
No, because I live in a nation that was founded on freedom of speech, freedom of speech is one of our accepted social contracts and traditions.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Because there's many different interpretations of God, Religion, and how one ought live.
I'd imagine.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
Eh, I think just a large number of people in America appreciate freedom of speech as 'Americans.
My first brother for instance is 'very Religious, but also 'very Libertarian.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
DebateArt: the authoritative source for Hitler gossip. ;-)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I get what you're 'getting at, but I still view it as a slanted perspective.
Created:
-->
@SkepticalOne
@PGA2.0
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
If atheism can be defined as 'lacking belief in God, then seems to me theism can be defined as 'having belief in God.
Neither of which statements 'say anything meaningful in how those perceptions of the world 'effect it.
You might claim a theists perception of their belief, can turn political, social, but that’s not just theism anymore.
. . .
When I Google "religion definition"
First three results I get are,
The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
A particular system of faith and worship.
A pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.
I fail to see how an individua, by those definitions, 'needs doctrine, to be religious.
. . .
For 'me, this conversation, bothers me, by what I perceive as a lack of awareness by some atheists, an obtuseness.
I don't actually remember your viewpoints at the moments, but am going with the assumption you are not so 'rabidly opposed to religion.
In hindsight, since I'm actually more interested in my understanding this particular line, rather than showboating, I should have used private messaging, as I think people speak different in public spaces, myself included. Ego more apparent. But too late now.
Some atheists are interested as atheism as a movement, but then distance themselves from the idea of a group identity.
Despite the clear 'existence of a number of groups in history and modern day, based upon beliefs in atheism and how atheist individuals ought act in society.
I am being obtuse and over semantic with my argument as well, in an attempt to stick my point, but perhaps I attempt poorly.
My 'point though, my opinion,
Is that atheism can be a reason as theism can be a reason.
I find it disingenuous, blind, to deny otherwise,
And I've 'never been much impressed with the definition of atheism as 'just a lack of belief in God.
Such a definition is worthy of the beasts, savages, and babes, than humans, civilized, adults.
If one is able to look around, read history, see ideas and concepts of man wondering 'why,
If they reject the concept of God, 'that I understand.
But a human with a lack of 'existence, or 'mind to consider the world?
Ach, I'm rambling irritated in this part,
. . .
The point is, I don't understand how you can make a statement such as,
You’ll find next to zero results showing atheists killing anyone due to atheism (The lack of belief in god(s)Atheism doesn’t have a whole ideology/culture underpinning it.
That appears in my reading of history, so patently false.
So willfully ignorant, and avoidant.
I don't understand the problem with admitting that atheists are capable of good or ill acts, same as with theists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
I fail to see the doctrine in religion or theism.
There is doctrine when organization is set up, where legalism and law is set up.
But this is possible in atheism as well.
Seems to 'me.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
They used religious doctrine to carry out and perpetuate atrocities. It’s impossible to do it with atheism. - Reece101How do you define doctrine? - Lemming
Hm, no answer, but I'm still bothered by the conversation,
"The government of the Soviet Union followed an unofficial policy of state atheism, aiming to gradually eliminate religious belief within its borders.[1][2] While it never officially made religion illegal, the state nevertheless made great efforts to reduce the prevalence of religious belief within society. To this end, at various times in its history it engaged in anti-religious persecutions of varying intensity and methodology. Believers were never officially attacked for being believers, but they were officially attacked for real or perceived political opposition to the state and to its policies.[3] These attacks, however, in the broader ideological context were ultimately meant to serve the ultimate goal of eliminating religion, and the perceived political opposition acted as a legal pretext to carry this out.[4] Thus, although the Soviet Union was officially a secular state and guaranteed freedom of religion in its constitutions, in practice believers suffered discrimination and were widely attacked for promoting religion.[3]
As part of its anti-religious campaigns, the Soviet state enacted a significant body of legislation that regulated and curtailed religious practices. This, along with many secret instructions that were not published, formed the legal basis for the Soviet state's anti-religious stance.[citation needed] Laws were designed in order to hurt and hamper religious activities, and the state often vigilantly watched religious believers for their breaking of these laws to justify arresting them. In some places, volunteer neighbourhood committees, called "public commissions for control over observance on the laws about religious cults", watched their religious neighbours and reported violations of the law to the appropriate authorities.[5] The state sought to control religious bodies through such laws with the intention of making those bodies disappear.[2] Often such laws incorporated many ambiguities that allowed for the state to abuse them in order to persecute believers."
As part of its anti-religious campaigns, the Soviet state enacted a significant body of legislation that regulated and curtailed religious practices. This, along with many secret instructions that were not published, formed the legal basis for the Soviet state's anti-religious stance.[citation needed] Laws were designed in order to hurt and hamper religious activities, and the state often vigilantly watched religious believers for their breaking of these laws to justify arresting them. In some places, volunteer neighbourhood committees, called "public commissions for control over observance on the laws about religious cults", watched their religious neighbours and reported violations of the law to the appropriate authorities.[5] The state sought to control religious bodies through such laws with the intention of making those bodies disappear.[2] Often such laws incorporated many ambiguities that allowed for the state to abuse them in order to persecute believers."
Seems to me they used atheistic doctrine to carry out and perpetuate atrocities. It’s impossible to do it with religion
(Sarcasm)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
I 'really fail to see the difference between a group of people with an atheist ideology that commits murder based upon their ideology,
And a group of people with a theistic ideology that commit murder based upon their ideology.
"Throughout the history of the Soviet Union (1917–1991), there were periods when Soviet authorities brutally suppressed and persecuted various forms of Christianity to different extents depending on State interests.[1] Soviet Marxist-Leninist policy consistently advocated the control, suppression, and ultimately, the elimination of religious beliefs, and it actively encouraged the propagation of Marxist-Leninist atheism in the Soviet Union.[2] However, most religions were never officially outlawed.[1]
The state advocated the destruction of religion, and to achieve this goal, it officially denounced religious beliefs as superstitious and backward.[3][4] The Communist Party destroyed churches, synagogues,[5] and mosques, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with anti-religious teachings, and it introduced a belief system called "scientific atheism," with its own rituals, promises and proselytizers.[6][7] According to some sources, the total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime has been estimated to range around 12 to 20 million.[8][9] And at least 106,300 Russian clergymen were executed during the Great Purge.[10] Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[11] not only in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces which were allowed to exist by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[12][13]"
The state advocated the destruction of religion, and to achieve this goal, it officially denounced religious beliefs as superstitious and backward.[3][4] The Communist Party destroyed churches, synagogues,[5] and mosques, ridiculed, harassed, incarcerated and executed religious leaders, flooded the schools and media with anti-religious teachings, and it introduced a belief system called "scientific atheism," with its own rituals, promises and proselytizers.[6][7] According to some sources, the total number of Christian victims under the Soviet regime has been estimated to range around 12 to 20 million.[8][9] And at least 106,300 Russian clergymen were executed during the Great Purge.[10] Religious beliefs and practices persisted among the majority of the population,[11] not only in the domestic and private spheres but also in the scattered public spaces which were allowed to exist by a state that recognized its failure to eradicate religion and the political dangers of an unrelenting culture war.[12][13]"
You say not all atheists are such, well fine, but why do you claim all theists are 'such?
It's not as though religion is some type of hive mind with one will, one mind.
I'm pretty sure it's 'obvious to most people, that Communism can occur in theism or atheism, it's a political and economic system based upon the public ownership of the means of production. 'Not a religious system. And includes a number of different variations.
Though it has occurred frequently in recent history in a number of atheistic regimes.
Stephen keeps analyzing every word and sentence you make, because he likes badgering people, insulting them, and hurling vitriol upon those who disagree with him.
Is 'my interpretation, which 'could be wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
By your logic, theism is not The Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, ect.
I 'think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
"When church leaders demanded freedom of religion under the constitution, the Communists responded with terror. They murdered the metropolitan of Kiev and executed twenty-eight bishops and 6,775 priests. Despite mass demonstrations in support of the church, repression cowed most ecclesiastical leaders into submission"
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Interesting thoughts regarding evolution, I can't say I recall hearing bantered around much.
More often I read people arguing against young Earth creationism, when they bring up evolution and religion.
As though a person can't believe in the scientific existence of evolution and God, at the same time.
Though I mention the 'fact of evolution, rather than the moral question, you raise.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
Well sure, "life & death" organisms live, and organisms die,
It's how people of faith in a life hereafter, 'look at life and death, that is an illusion in my eyes.
Also are semantic thoughts for even how materialists perceive "life & death", but I don't care to discuss that, confusing, long winded, off topic.
Existence 'looks to have been around a 'long time, and appears to take place over a large amount of space.
It doesn't surprise me that improbable event's happen.
Though 'why or 'how is there anything, boggles me a bit.
Well, I feel doubt that even if God 'did exist, that he 'chooses all self/church appointed priests of God.
Seems to me,
"many are called, but few are chosen."
Matthew 22:14
King James Version
So regarding evolution, what is it 'about evolution, that you arrive at your subjective position that evolution proves god is a myth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Timid8967
I can see the appeal of believing because of "life & death" and "crime & justice".
Though I still think them illusions for believing in God.
But seems to me easy enough for a number of religious believers to accept evolution, and continue to believe.
Some see allegory in the Bible, or man's attempts to describe as best he 'can Gods world, rather than the literal word of God.
Regarding pedophiliac priests., the Bible is 'rife of people who did not follow Gods will, even if they were Kings, priests, his chosen people.
Though if you mean the The Problem of Evil argument, I suppose I'd understand that as case for some atheists.
. . .
@NoOneINParticular
I kind of wish Benjamin had said 'which God or denomination.
Though I assume he meant the Abrahamic idea and history of God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Benjamin
The one's I don't remember unless I read up and refresh myself on the topic, which are not the one's I'm going to give.
For God
There's a feeling in this life, an underlying meaning, it can't end in nothing.
Seeing God's workings in existence.
Against God
I don't see him, and believe any time in the past I thought there was something to see, was an illusion.
Lot of contradictions, in various ways.
Created:
Posted in:
Hahaha, Communist 'Red planet, hahahahahahaha.
I get it now,
Because Deng Xiaoping.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
I think you're Timid8967.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vader
Eh, SNL 'can be funny, 'was funny in the past.
Though I haven't watched the show in years.
Since I acquired internet, have more options than just what's on TV.
Just read the comments on the video you linked though, rather than watching it, seems many others hated that clip as well.
Created:
Posted in:
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
It can be difficult to tell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kamikaze
Why are you a beekeeper?
The two answers I'd expect are either it's a living, or it's a hobby,
But sometimes people describe their pursuits in a different way than I'd look at them.
Created:
-->
@Intelligence_06
No need for a round trip.
Need encourages innovation.
All they'd have to do, is claim they're Gods, kill a few of the unbelievers, preform a few miracles, and direct their loyal followers unto conquest.
Gunpowder can be manufactured in greater quantities upon arrival.
. . .
Though maybe the invaders end up stabbed.
Created:
-->
@Timid8967
How do we stop giving religious movements airtime and oxygen without talking about them?
I don't understand the question, can you rephrase it?
Created:
Posted in:
Though I'm not sure if it's worth watching, there's a reaction video, then a reaction video to the reaction video, then a reaction video to the reaction video of the reaction video.
Get's tedious.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgmi
That 'is what I found odd, I suppose a person could claim I was xenophobic, though I don't think I am.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
Mass importing a bunch of people who have no relation or ties to America will help us understand different perspectives and further enrich our multicultural society. It will certainly not lead to ethnic ghettoization and conflict, nor will it depress wages unlike some racists would say.This has been successful to some extent but I think the entire populations of Somalia and Mexico should be imported will lead to even greater benefits then we currently see.
It'd lead to a bastardization of our culture, and a disintegration of our country, you mean.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Let's say Mars was a copy of Earth, but Mar's technology is 2000 years behind ours.
Could we currently invade it?
Sure we could.
Created:
-->
@Benjamin
Assumption: Intelligent aliens exist, and they match or outperform our intelligence. They also have a technological head startQuestion: would the aliens be able to launch a successful invasion of Earth?
I don't know, depends what 'space, and space travel 'is.
I sure don't know.
Sure I know what space 'is, and spaceships, but our current understanding and application, is primitive I suspect.
Including our theories on what we 'should be doing.
Technological development is often surprising and unexpected, to the layman, I assume.
Question maybe similar to Aztecs asking if some unknown culture across the great ocean, could successfully invade their empire.
Assuming they didn't know how 'large the Earth was.
Of course if technology can still be assumed to have room for improvement, A theoretical enemy 'advanced enough, of course 'could defeat an inferiorly advanced foe.
Real question isn't whether it 'could happen,
But whether the conditions 'required for such exist.
I 'think.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MarkWebberFan
I read The Brothers Karamazov, as a freshman in High School, because I happened to find it in the public library.
Was a huge, dense, slow reading book for me, as I recall it.
I remember 'pieces of the plot, so it had an impact I suppose.
Parts I remember involved religion, faith, family, crime, conflict, questioning, society.
The ending felt a bit unresolved to me, but maybe that had to do with my reading level and maturity at the time.
I've never read, Anna Karenina.
Just haven't happened upon it in life.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Nice one.
Luke: I don't believe it.
Yoda: That is why you fail.
- The Empire Strikes Back -
Though there 'are limits to 'what an individual can accomplish, no matter their belief and confidence.
Belief and confidence, do wonders for people being 'willing to act, and their performance 'in their actions.
. . .
For instance, I'm not one for 'faith healing, believing in literal demon's possessing people, or people of past ages being able to cure epilepsy.
But a theist can still find ways to believe their faith, I'd say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
"Once it's proved to you that, essentially speaking, one little drop of your own fat should be dearer to you than a hundred thousand of your fellow men, and that in this result all so-called virtues and obligations and other ravings and prejudices will finally be resolved, go ahead and accept it, there's nothing to be done, because two times two is-mathematics. Try objecting to that."
- Notes from Underground
- Novel by Fyodor Dostoevsky
It doesn't really matter 'what moral/ethic system one uses, I'm thinking, identifying myself as a nihilist, as I do.
Don't really matter if one chooses altruism or egoism,
I can be pleased by happening to treat other's decently, and pursue such by that pleasant feeling, a selfish reason.
I can think I know better for others lives, than they know themselves, force methods that seem wrong to them, out of my desire to 'help them.
Ethics, morality, drive me a bit to madness should I think about them too much.
Easier to just exercise a 'bit, of reasoning, easier still to accept habits 'without reasoning.
Reasoning though, if you want some, though they seem arbitrary to me.
'
We humans often possess empathy,
Seeing other's as people, ourselves in them,
Feel their pain, see from their eyes,
A sense of justice, instinctually we attribute,
They deserving.
Could go with game theory,
People less likely to violate you,
If you don't violate others.
And I return to habit,
Our aesthetics, our preferences,
Imprinted by our past actions,
Forced to play nice as children,
Becomes a preference as adult.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Ah, I remember that one.
I feel a bit sorry for the servant punished, who simply buried his talents, being an underachiever myself.
Though I suppose if there had been an expectation stated in the beginning, about the servants being expected to grow, rather than simply safe-hold their master's wealth, I'd have felt less sorry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ronjs
I don't know about other religions,
And all I have is an 'assumption for Christianity.
That is, it shows an irreverence, carelessness, a lack of respect, that deflates the currency so to speak.
A person used to saying "God damn you", for instance,
If the name of God is used careless, what value does the speaker hold God?
Maybe shows he holds God in little value.
'Maybe for people of faith, their relationship with God is supposed to be something very 'real to them,
Integral in their daily lives, He and his word, something they live by, breathe by.
Respect is common in human society.
Common for people to hold sacred, some conventions.
Flags, curse words, respect to parents.
To me, just another way a society 'keeps sacred, what they value 'as sacred.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Kadin
I don't have a favorite I'd say, but read this recently.
Makes me think about what and how people hold certain things sacred / value them.
Isaiah 44
The Lord, Not Idols
6 “This is what the Lord says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God.
7 Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it.
Let him declare and lay out before me
what has happened since I established my ancient people,
and what is yet to come—
yes, let them foretell what will come.
8 Do not tremble, do not be afraid.
Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago?
You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me?
No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.”
9 All who make idols are nothing,
and the things they treasure are worthless.
Those who would speak up for them are blind;
they are ignorant, to their own shame.
10 Who shapes a god and casts an idol,
which can profit nothing?
11 People who do that will be put to shame;
such craftsmen are only human beings.
Let them all come together and take their stand;
they will be brought down to terror and shame.
12 The blacksmith takes a tool
and works with it in the coals;
he shapes an idol with hammers,
he forges it with the might of his arm.
He gets hungry and loses his strength;
he drinks no water and grows faint.
13 The carpenter measures with a line
and makes an outline with a marker;
he roughs it out with chisels
and marks it with compasses.
He shapes it in human form,
human form in all its glory,
that it may dwell in a shrine.
14 He cut down cedars,
or perhaps took a cypress or oak.
He let it grow among the trees of the forest,
or planted a pine, and the rain made it grow.
15 It is used as fuel for burning;
some of it he takes and warms himself,
he kindles a fire and bakes bread.
But he also fashions a god and worships it;
he makes an idol and bows down to it.
16 Half of the wood he burns in the fire;
over it he prepares his meal,
he roasts his meat and eats his fill.
He also warms himself and says,
“Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.”
17 From the rest he makes a god, his idol;
he bows down to it and worships.
He prays to it and says,
“Save me! You are my god!”
18 They know nothing, they understand nothing;
their eyes are plastered over so they cannot see,
and their minds closed so they cannot understand.
19 No one stops to think,
no one has the knowledge or understanding to say,
“Half of it I used for fuel;
I even baked bread over its coals,
I roasted meat and I ate.
Shall I make a detestable thing from what is left?
Shall I bow down to a block of wood?”
20 Such a person feeds on ashes; a deluded heart misleads him;
he cannot save himself, or say,
“Is not this thing in my right hand a lie?”
Created:
-->
@Sum1hugme
Different people are convinced differently.
People have different reasons and motivations, different depths for what they 'do believe.
It's a question easier answered with some context.
'I think.
Myself I have difficulty with 'answering the question, because it's not 'my motivation.
I have an easier time justifying what I 'do believe, than what I don't.
In addition the two questions
"Why should a Holocaust survivor believe in God?"
and
"How would you go about trying to reconvince them that there is a god, or that this god loves them? "
Are different question, with different answers.
. . .
'I think faith is a deep well, of many sources.
Not 'just one.
It seems to me more complicated than asking for a single simple argument.
Ask me how to make cake, and my saying,
Flour, Sugar,
Is an insufficient answer.
. . .
Out of curiosity,
Have you ever read,
Man's Search For Meaning by Viktor Frankl?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Username
I mean is anyone else seeing this????? This is absurd - armoredcat
You have a choice in who you 'choose to talk to, if you find a conversation absurd, you don't 'need to continue it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Stetting is 'bleak, but current.
Basically is a Choose Your Own Adventure?
Such books 'were popular for a time, I remember reading some,
Maybe they still are.
If enough 'content was 'in game, could be popular.
Just layman opinion of mine though.
Created:
-->
@triangle.128k
Sure, have some of the Northern Mexican cities rebel against their government and ask for their cities to be annexed into the United States, sounds great.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@fauxlaw
Well, I'd agree that a biological mother and a biological father, raising their biological children is an effective methodology, 'generally in a society.
'May be that having 'standard 'culture in raising of kids is 'generally more effective in society.
Making interchangeable parts is useful for machinery.
By that I mean if people use same standard, then same methods, stress, intervention, teaching can be applied to said standard.
May be other family compositions in raising kids also effective, but I'm more familiar with biological mother, father raising kid.
Created: