I’m going to talk about your first reply on Dec 4, you accuse me of “making a quite sweeping statement” about you not having read or applying your mind to understanding it, but then you go on to say
“Ok, I will not pretend to have studied all of the bible as to applying my mind to it that is just your opinion.
So 1, you have to admit it was not a sweeping statement it was a true statement you have not read it all, which you have to to understand it.
I was referring to the ' applying my mind to understand,' part of your statement! As you do not know my mind/ brains properly, neither are you directly aware of my cognitive ability or lack of it. How do you know??? I could read the Bible back to front a million times Pete. It does not mean I would end up agreeing with what the scriptures actually say. Just because I have not studied a religious text as closely as you. It does not automatically follow I cannot understand or form a reasonable opinion based on common sense. Yet you make the assumption, my ability to interpret the bible is suspect. Partly on my limited (compared to your good self), read knowledge. Partly from your inference, I would not understand, even if I read the book several times. I find the latter inference a clear example as a sweeping statement, for reasons I have already clearly stated.
A lot of what human beings act on is mere speculation and filling in the gaps. This is how the human brain works; it will fill in any gaps of knowledge. With speculation, based on existing evidence and past learning/ experience. Ok this may not be ideal, however most of a human kinds science and knowledge started off as speculation. The salient point being, I or anyone else for that matter. Could read the bible once, or parts of it. Yet still come to a reasonable conclusion or opinion, that maybe correct or more accurate. Then someone that has studied the bible for years. Remember, bias comes into this as well Pete. A lot of the Bible is a matter of faith, not a matter of reality or indeed fact (I use the term 'fact,' loosely).
Can the Bible give me concise instructions for building a Nuclear Submarine? Can the Bible tell me how to make salt and how to test for the presence of salt? Can the Bible furnish me the necessary instructions on how to save someone’s life, whilst they are having a heart attack? Does the Bible explain gravitation? How the Universe works on the Macro and Micro scopic level?
The answer to all these questions is obviously NO! So for me personally, the Bible does not furnish me with any useful information. That I can test myself and verify against the reality that I know. Ok not all of the above examples are in terms of direct experience. However they are in a logical and self consistent way, which has supporting evidence to back up the theory/ ideas.
And 2, if you had have applied your mind to it you would not have come out with such ignorant and abusive things as you did in your reply to Jane, it is very clear that you do not understand it and it seems or even want to. If you had said that sort of thing to a Muslim they would probably issued a fatwa against you, but being a Christian I forgive and forget because its God you insulted, not me, and he is quite capable of defending himself if he wants to.
Ummmm, what are you exactly referring to here Pete?
I take it you mean this comment?
I still find the the Old Testament and the New Testament, totally at odds with one another. The former prattles on about a nasty vengeful God, who likes to kick non- believers Arse! The latter book being the proverbial contradiction of the former!
Where the nasty God impregnates a human woman with his son!
Who will eventually becomes the sacrificial lamb for all human kind. Thereby absolving mankind's Sins via the death of his own son?................ Sorry this story really does not make any sense whatsoever! Too me that is!
Ok, fair comment Pete, my comments did come across as abrasive and dismissive. I apologise, there was no offence intended. It is just my screwy dry sense of humour, it does come across as being abusive sometimes.
However, I think you overreacted slightly there. If the situations were reversed, and you wrote: “Atheists are brutal sinners with no sense of moral justice or moral fibre!" I would have just found the remarks amusing and comical, not in the least abusive
Also you have not addressed the three points I made in the afore mentioned OP. You have only claimed I am being abusive I have apologised if my comments came across as such. So moving on, can you care to address my observations I made.
If you had said that sort of thing to a Muslim they would probably issued a fatwa against you, but being a Christian I forgive and forget because its God you insulted, not me, and he is quite capable of defending himself if he wants to.
Have I insulted God? Or just faith and human misinterpretation of natural events? How can I insult God, if I do not believe in him? That does not make logical sense! That’s like saying to a child, that doll your are playing with, which you think is alive. Is made of plastic and is very much inactive. Am I insulting the Doll, urrrrrrrg no, I am questioning the child’s belief.
As to why a plastic Doll would have feelings or consciousness.
Do not get me wrong, I respect everyone’s faith. As long as it is not forced onto others, or used as an excuse to subjugate or abuse others.
Also the references you gave, from the Bible, were cherry picked by yourself. Suggesting that the Old Testament God, was non vengeful and non hateful, is of course a matter of your bias. I find it strange; you have forgotten to include the more violent references and vengeful God references. That anyone with any sense can see for themselves.
The Bible has helped you through hard times Pete and has given you a unique perspective on life. I think we can both agree on that Pete, for you on a personal level. The Bible has provided you with excellent support, and taught you something about yourself and the world around you.
However, everyone is different, we all think and feel differently and have been through experiences. That indeed shape and form the way we see and experience the world around us.
Sorry mate, to put all my belief into a book that has been written by many different hands. Over many different epochs of time, under different social-political circumstances. Basically a book written by human beings with human foibles and predjuces, not by a God! Ok, you may argue, that the recorded words are the words of God. Hang on there, who recorded the words? Who wrote the words? Who copied and rewrote the words of God. Human beings, therefore the words of God become corrupted and diluted throughout history. Therefore how can anyone make any claims based on a book, whose information is purely anecdotal at best? Even on these basic grounds, I find the whole idea flimsy at best. Why do we need a God, to tell us how to be altruistic or love thy neighbor? The answer is we do not! These are already natural parts of our and the animal kingdoms behavourival makeup.
Lastly what was that untrue quote you wrote at the end?
Humility is not a passive state of acceptance.
Humility is an aggressive state of seeking!
The quote is only untrue in the literal context. However, the quote was not meant to be taken literally. The quote only applies to my own ways of dealing with the world I see and experience.
In effect the quote could be considered a bit of a joke on how people perceive humility. Humility in the dictionary definition
means a state of being humble, modest, self abased or submissive; an act of submission (quoted from Nuttall,s dictionary)
Yep no problems so far! However to me, it is also an aggressive way of seeking. When I say aggressive I mean active or a vigorous way of attaining information. On the surface one may seem..... Humble or Meek indeed submissive. However, part of this is only a mask or a deception so to speak. Humbleness masks the real intent of active information gathering. Being humble actually helps the process of information gathering, as you are more open. Yet this can also act as a mask, where you are in fact quite aggressive in information retrieval. Yet to the outside world, you are humble, non aggressive, modest and submissive. Underneath you can be an aggressive gatherer, using the humble mask as a form of counter intelligence.
This mask could even be employed against yourself, or aspects of yourself that may indeed inhibit the task of un-biased information gathering.
So as you can now hopefully appreciate, there is a very concise and logical though personal reason for the signature.
BTW Pete, I did warn you before hand, you would have to be prepared for debate and challenge. You must remember not to take things too personally or too much to heart. This is after all just a forum, not an ideological battleground. I know from personal experience, as I have done this in the past.
Without deviation from the norm, progress is not possible- Frank Zappa.
To negatively criticize another man's thoughts without first criticizing one's own, it is an act of aggression, a form of psychological terrorism, and an immoral behaviour Larry Gowdy