by bikerchic 36 Replies latest jw friends
All this anger toward the Society turned toward God...shameful...regretful
I am no more angry at your god for not caring than I am at Santa Claus for not giving me presents. The god of those billboards is a small, poorly contrived character completely undeserving of respect. That sort of nonsense invites ridicule.
Dear Yeru,
I know you are not a fundy. But the people who put up those billboards are no better than the ones who knock on your door on saturday mornings with Watchtowers and Awakes. It is religion at its most extreme being force fed to people who do not believe the same way. Spiritual Rape is the modus operandi of all southern(and midwestern) fundys and this is where most of these billboards are.
Does the Christian God really want followers who have to be forced to serve him? I don't believe this God is being properly represented by that nonsense as FunkyDerek so aptly called it. And if this God is being properly represented, then I want nothing to do with a stalker-god who kills you if you don't accept his 'love'. That is sick.
One reason why I have more respect for Catholics and Mormons is that once you are one, they don't plague you and make you regret your choice. You can be an inactive Catholic or Mormon right up till you die and still be counted. And neither tell you what you can learn or read(nowadays). I just can not believe there is only one truth and xtianity has it all. If there is One Truth it is not within human grasp at this time and religions are but pieces of the puzzle. ALL religions. So what does it matter to anyone but me and my deity which piece I place first? If I finish the puzzle--who cares whether I did it by framing it in first or looking at the picture on the box?
Ravyn
Funk,
It's YOUR perception that God doesn't care cuz you're not getting what you want or think you have a right to. I used to be pissed at my dad for his lack of caring for me...then I learned more about my dad...thank God....The reason I hardly saw him as a kid was because he was working his ass off to provide for his family.
God Cares...
It's YOUR perception that God doesn't care cuz you're not getting what you want or think you have a right to.
No, it's my perception that your god doesn't care because it's my perception that he doesn't exist. Whether he exists or not, the god of those billboards appears to be a petty, vindictive character who likes playing mind games with people.
God Cares...
So does Santa Claus.
Don't make me come down there.
-God
Come and have a go if you think you're real enough
-Atheist
Yeru, sweetie, listen;
All this anger toward the Society turned toward God...shameful...regretful
... this is a varient on the 'baby with the bathwater' argument, which is chiefly used by people who assume that there is no possibility that they could be wrong and that anyone who doesn't agree with them does so for petty reasons, not for justifiable reasons like, say, god doesn't bloody well exist so all this worship bollocks is not really that worthwhile.
As you've yet to prove god exists, I see the ball as being in your court. Maybe your big mythical friend can help you out on this one?
I always find it very convenient that all this creatingdelugebringinglanguagedividingbushburningplaugevisitingseapartingcolumnoffiringsunstandingstillingvirginimpregnatingseawalkingwineturningsickhealingdeadraisingnailtotreeingrisingfromdeading all happens in front of ancient people and gets recorded in infinately disputable/interpretable texts with (other than occasional historical attestation to places and peoples refered to having actually existed) no other evidence of any paranormality at any stage other than written testimony which is uncollaboratable.
It's also funny how nowadays even when miracles are claimed to take place there is always a similar lack of evidence.
All of this doubt and uncertainty could be resolved with just one little miracle... it wouldn't even have to be a burning Bush, although that would be quite a good one! Just make sure there's advance notice so all the scientists get their equipment set up and the media have the cameras rolling.
'Cause saying 'faith' is good enough, and that if we knew for sure we wouldn't have freewill is a non-argument.
If faith were a good enough detrmination of what is true and what isn't, there would be one religion.
If knowing something is a fact restricted freewill, then no one would break laws.
And the old 'Stan (sorry, Satan) muddies the water' argument is equally slack-jawed, as how could a fair loving god allow the deceptions of a rebel doom people acting in good faith?
As for the 'god is not apparent because he's busy working overtime to support a young family', well, whilst original as arguments for the non-provability of god go, well, I suppoose its laughability value makes up for its patent silliness.
So, tell you what, have a chat with your invisable friend and see what you can set up. I won't hold my breath though...
I do agree however that you are not a 'fundy'. I gather you are a Roman Catholic - and you have every right to believe what the hell you like. However, just as JCanon cannot prove he is Jesus, you cannot prove there is a god, and acting superior 'cause you base your entire life on something intangible is not really justified, as I think you would laugh at JCanon doing it, or a Hindu doping it, or a Muslim doing it... yet all these have as much proof as you.
All this anger toward the Society turned toward God...shameful...regretful.
without getting too abstract here....I think that atheism is religious in its non-belief(humans need religion for some unknown reason and this just supports religious mystery and 'faith'). So when I hear or see atheists and humanists arguing with religious people about matters of faith I think what it would be like if you just turned off the sound and watched the body language---I doubt you could tell which one was which. Non-belief becomes dogma, and atheists are as evangelical and charismatic within their own paradigm as any born-again xtian or islamic fundy.
I believe in gods/goddesses. I believe there is One Ultimate way back somewhere that we cannot touch from here and we need the other lesser ones in between in order to connect. But it is a Baskin-Robbins kind of theology....it's all ice cream, but comes in 31 flavors and you have no right to force feed me the flavor I don't like, or want, or happen to be allergic too. Christian fundys(all fundys for that matter) are convinced that their flavor is the only true flavor and all the other flavors are poisonous and it is their duty to keep you from them. oh well.
The Catholic Church was the first organized version of Christianity that achieved anything lasting. Of course it had problems--there was no one else to blame! However, all the problems were caused by groups and factions within it, who eventually died off or broke away to form their own groups. You cannot blame the whole Church for everything. Yes they claim responsibility by default. But life aint that simple and anyone with eyes in their head can see that there have been as many good guys as bad guys, and it logically comes out that there were more good ones...since the Catholic world has not dissolved into and evil melting pot--regardless of the latest scandals--(the vast majority of the Church's influence is untouched by these scandals no matter what the media and detractors have to say about it). So back when their was only one Church and it was the Roman one, whatever happened is the shared responsibility of every sect that has since broken off of it up to the time they left. I am tired of hearing Protestant groups disowning responsibilty when they were originally Catholic and have as much responsibilty as anyone else up to the time they left communion with the 'mother' church. Why must christianity insist on rewriting history? What is wrong with admittingy ou were once wrong---fixing it--and going on? Geesh!
even atheists owe their existence to the Church. without the Church they would have never decided to not believe! They would be hard-pressed to try to come up with a lineage of atheism pre-Christianity since they use the supposed 'immaturity' of humanity's religious 'superstition' to support their non-belief! In other words--before Christianity the pagan people were superstitious and not as evolved as they are today---which makes it rare that an atheist would have existed back then.
Anway, the 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' analogy is an odd thing for an atheist or non-believer or even agnostic to use since to a believer that is exactly what THEY have done! Of course you can't prove the existence of god---who said you could? who said you have to? Do you have to taste all 31 flavors before you believe Baskin-Robbins has them?
why can't humans live and let live? where does this fundy-gene come from? it will be the death of us all, and I mean all--human and non.
Ravyn
All this anger toward the Society turned toward God...shameful...regretful.
Kinda big assumption on your part, isn't it?
Actually, in my case, it would be anger towards religion in general.
Think of all the pain and suffering it has caused over the generations.
BTW-when was the last time God answered one of your prayers? Just wondering......
I'll rely on myself, family, friends, and karma thank you.
Ravyn:
I think what it would be like if you just turned off the sound and watched the body language---I doubt you could tell which one was which.
Yup, and if you had a Red Socks fan arguing with a Cardinals fan over their favoured team's innate superiority, and pulled the same trick, you could tell people they were arguing about politics, money, or religion, and people would likely believe you. The fact that in a spirited discussion humans behave like strategically shaved primates, no matter what the topic is, is scarsely surprising unless you believe in Special Creation.
Given the above, your quoted observation proves nothing.
You seem to approach this discussion from a viewpoint that opinions are equal; that a Papuan Animist's opinions on the origin of life are as relaible and sound as Roman Catholics and as relaible and sound as a cosmologist, and that the life choices made by people on the basis of these beliefs are as valid as each other.
Don't get me wrong; you and everyone else have every right to believe in any damn fool thing they like, just as I do.
But I don't get the big double standard that is applied the minute people start talking about their imaginary friends.
If you knew someone who, on the basis of some book that said Fred had paid off some debt once thousands of years ago, lent some money every day to Fred, even though there was no proof that the repayment refered to in the book ever happend, and there was no sign of Fred ever having turned up recently, you'd think your friend was a fool.
However, the minute you replace Fred with God and money with faith, are you really telling me it's unreasonable to think that person is a fool?
If your child decided never to cross the road away from a pedistrian crossing because of the great drain monster, and persisted in this belief into adulthood, you'd worry. Replace road and pedestrian crossing with breaking Biblical laws and great drain monster with god, and you're saying all of a sudden you'd not worry?
Hell, if a hobo asks you for a quarter and says he'll pay you back a million dollars, you'd laugh... but if someone tells you that they've been assured praying to Saint so-an-so will assure them of money, you telling me you don't laugh?
Of course, I don't laugh in people faces normally; it's not nice and accomplishes nothing normally as if someone believes in something that has no tangible evidence it's very hard for you to attack the evidence supporting their beliefs as there is none. Harmless is as harmless does in my books. More improtantly, mostly I couldn't care less.
I don't accuse any religionist of any crime unless I have evidence. You, for example, are quite free to pursue your home-rolled smorgasboard religion. You are not using it as a platform for moral condemnation, or as pretexts for enforcing your own standards on others.
I do admit that the minute someone sucks their teeth and implies superiority (or as Undisfellowshipped did the other day, actually ask for criticism of their testimony) due to some unprovable belief or the other regarding their imaginary friend I tend to react, but that is obviously just as much my right as it is theirs to suck their teeth and imply superiority.
Afterall, If you were accused of a crime by someone who alleged that they had evidence you were guilty of a crime, when in fact they could not produce any such evidence and despite the fact evidence that would stand up in a court of law was never produced, not once, ever, they kept on accusing you of a crime, of being a wrong-doer...
... well, it would annoy you.
even atheists owe their existence to the Church. without the Church they would have never decided to not believe!
Not your normal standard of arguement Rayvn!
Black owes its existance to white, without white it would not be black? You do realise that before 'the Church', as in the Roman Catholic church, there were still people who didn't believe in god/s?
They would be hard-pressed to try to come up with a lineage of atheism pre-Christianity since they use the supposed 'immaturity' of humanity's religious 'superstition' to support their non-belief! In other words--before Christianity the pagan people were superstitious and not as evolved as they are today---which makes it rare that an atheist would have existed back then.
Again, this isn't a good argument. It's like saying that people who believe the world is round would have trouble tracing the ancient lineage of that belief as part of that belief is that belief in the flatness of the world was a result of superstitious religious nonsense. I can show that the roundness of the Earth was attested to in the ancient world, despite the prevailing superstitious beliefs... and I can assure you many many people wondered why the top of a mast would appear over the horizon before the rest of a boat if the world was flat, but didn't wonder too loudly as it was bad for your heath to doubt superstitious religious nonsense. Hell, the whole of Ovid's Metamorphesis was predicated by the increasing prevalance of atheism (albeit with adherance to expected custom) in educated society at the time. The Christian Church was selected as a unifying tool as no-one bought the stroy of the dvinity of the Emperor any more.
Anway, the 'throwing the baby out with the bath water' analogy is an odd thing for an atheist or non-believer or even agnostic to use since to a believer that is exactly what THEY have done!
You miss my point; their allegation is based on presuppositonalism. Like it or not, outside of the realm of god it is excepted that things do not exist unless you can prove they exist. As I point out above, applying a different standard of proof to anything to do with god is a double standard.
Of course you can't prove the existence of god---who said you could? who said you have to? Do you have to taste all 31 flavors before you believe Baskin-Robbins has them?
Never said you could which is why people who imply you can annoy me... but I do have an invisable magic horse I can sell you, are you interested?
... this is a varient on the 'baby with the bathwater' argument, which is chiefly used by people who assume that there is no possibility that they could be wrong and that anyone who doesn't agree with them does so for petty reasons, not for justifiable reasons like, say, god doesn't bloody well exist so all this worship bollocks is not really that worthwhile.
I never said the reason for the disagreement was petty...however...I'm not wrong on this..I'm never wrong...well, that's not entirely true...I once thought I was wrong...but it turned out I was right...so I was wrong about being wrong.
It's also funny how nowadays even when miracles are claimed to take place there is always a similar lack of evidence.
Actually, that's not really true. Take a trip over to Lourdes, France. All the healings there are documented...
The witness of 10,000 people in Fatima
No...the miracles aren't explained...but there isn't lack of evidence. If we could explain it...it wouldn't be a miracle.
you cannot prove there is a god, and acting superior 'cause you base your entire life on something intangible is not really justified,
I've been acting superior? How so? I don't think of myself that way.
LED,
Think of all the pain and suffering it has caused over the generations.And look at all the suffering brought about by those who have tried to stamp out religion...Hitler..Stalin...Mao...need I say more?
