a challenge for christians – why christianity?
The existence of God is evident and obvious, a simple matter of fact. Blood, air, water, dirt, vegetables, marriage, clean animals, unclean animals, night creatures, sea life, stars, mountains, memory, insects, the brain, the conscience, the heart, the soul, male, female, man, woman, time, children, love, hate, sweat, tears, space, laughter, matter, earthquakes, thunder, lightning, rainbows, hail, snow, arithmetic, words, color, music, sound, all things having a grand design, and hardly worthy of crediting to a big and fat vat of purposeless nothingness. (Colorstorm)
Many Christians are sure that the Christian god God exists because they don’t understand how it is possible for anything to exist in his absence. Most scientists would disagree. Not being a scientist myself, I do understand their sense of wonder at what we see around us, and the pull to ascribe a sense of purpose to this existence.
So, basically, I’m not perturbed by the idea that people believe in a creator. What really confuses me is how they reach the conclusion that the Middle Eastern god of the Jews is the obvious creator behind the curtains.
Let’s look at some fatal flaws in drawing the conclusion that the Christian god God is the creator of our existence:
- He’s male. How ridiculous is that? If a creator god existed and had gender traits, she would obviously be a woman – a mother that births.
- He’s benevolent and perfect but he kills and tortures with glee. Is that possible?
- Many of the stories from his holy book are stolen from other cultures’ relgious myth parades. Does that not look fishy? Ark before Noah, anyone?
- Most people in most cultures believe in the superstition of their culture, or trade up to one offering them a better life (or death). Wonder why you chose the Christian god?
My challenge to Christians is: even if you’re insufficiently educated to fully understand how existence could be possible without a creator, why would the Christian god God be the obvious answer?
For me at 15 in kansas and at 23 in az, I didn’t know of any other options than christianity
LikeLike
I suspect that’s a common experience …
LikeLike
At 49 I think I might know better than at 15 or 23
LikeLike
I don’t know. My brain was certainly fresher when I was 20. Unfortunately there were less facts tossing around in it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m with you on this Violet. I have heard an expert say we never forget anything, but the brain gets slower as we age because there is so much more information stored away. Much like a computer which one has had for a number of years.
LikeLike
Yes, and add on to that I haven’t had a full night’s sleep in about a year. I’m surprised I can string a sentence together sometimes …
LikeLike
I’m not christian so I can’t answer can I? Oh, flip!
!0 to 1 you don’t get more than one taker. Colorstorm and SOM don’t count unless they can produce signed notes from their relevant medical professionals.
LikeLike
Oh, and jokes about mental health aren’t funny either. Honestly, one wonders if you people ever get out in the real world.
LikeLike
True. Calling someone who is mental mental is merely stating the obvious and might be construed as cruel.
However, on saying this, if we consider that such presuppositional religious fundamentalism is anything but normal how is ”challenging” a Christian to justify their specific choice of god any less cruel? And it still sounds a bit like goading to moi.
All this is likely to do is bring on a dose of cognitive dissonance and have them dribble over their keyboard.
Besides, like Arch, my unique brand of irreverence was cited as being partially responsible for a deconversion.
Yes, even I was surprised.
So, if such people wish to engage, they ought to be wearing their big person pants and know their stuff.
I do get out in the real world. But the big dogs are scary.
LikeLiked by 3 people
https://amusingnonsense.wordpress.com/2015/04/18/religion-isnt-a-mental-illness/
LikeLike
And make sure you scroll down to the comments.. especially mine!
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s got anything to do with what pants anyone is wearing. This is the key point:
“Reducing mental health stigma is very important to human flourishing”
LikeLike
Then how is winding up Christians with a post that rags on their god going to help one iota?
LikeLike
What do you mean?
LikeLike
Must Christians are Christians just because it’s the default religion in their culture. Trying to get them to think about that, not wind anyone up.
LikeLike
Well, we all have our own style of delivery, I suppose.
I await the Christian response with genuine interest if not quite baited breath.
I am especially keen to read dp’s response, if he is game.
I see he is hanging around this afternoon.
He at least is usually more erudite than most Christians, even if his reasoning is a bit skew.
LikeLike
“He at least is usually more erudite than most Christians, even if his reasoning is a bit skew.”
I’m loathed to agree with you, but dp is starting to grow on me. He generally has much better reasoned and informed arguments than the rest of them.
LikeLike
Well, his recent thread with Club and John had its moments, but one has to be alert to the underlying religiosity.
I would welcome a straight answer from him, rather than the waffle type response from your latest visitor.
LikeLike
Are you not developing a soft spot for Colorstorm? He leaves long and flowery comments that never address the post or the arguments in hand, but they’re really quite amusing and attractive works of art. (Have I been blogging too long?)
LikeLike
‘Hell no!!’ to the first part …. Er, maybe for the second.
LikeLike
Don’t confuse reducing the stigma with recognizing dysfunction. Treatment doesn’t start until the dysfunction is recognized.
LikeLike
I’ll have a thorough read through it all later on.
LikeLike
Ok, I’ve finished the reading the post and comments. I’m not sure you got the same message from the post as I did. For me it has nothing to do with whether not Christian views can be equated with or are hiding behind mental illness. It’s about using language that offends and marginalises and allows for the ongoing discrimination of a vulnerable section of society. Being ‘politically correct’ is much maligned, but it often serves the purpose of helping groups of people with specific characteristics that have traditionally been oppressed or marginalised feel as comfortable as everyone else in society. If changing my use language can make someone’s life better, more positive, I don’t get what the big deal is.
I’ve found a quote from a Guardian article that I think says it best:
—–
The sign “You don’t have to be crazy to work here but it helps” has become so common that it’s a cliché. People describing themselves as “a bit mad” usually mean that they’ve worn a sparkly hat at some point. Terms like mentalist, psycho, bonkers, insane and barking are thrown around like loose pennies in a conversational washing machine. Look at Terry, the mentalist. He’s bonkers. He’s so drunk he’s gone outside to punch the thunder for annoying the moon. Mad!
An argument could be made that these terms, while technically describing mental illness are not being used to specifically refer to mental illness. Rather they are referring to behaviour which they consider a little out of the ordinary. We can refer to this argument as Gervais’s Gambit. The problem is that if this language is making people with mental illness feel stigmatised, ashamed and isolated then the amount of thought behind it as it is used casually is largely irrelevant.
If you are so attached to using a word you don’t want to put any thought behind it before you use it that’s fine. I am more than happy for you to take your dictionary on a romantic weekend away if you promise to use your technical definitions in private without hurting anyone. “But nobody I know has complained about me using this language.” Well no, perhaps the people you know with mental illness are too worried you’ll call them crazy and laugh at their inability to sing.
—–
http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2012/sep/06/crazy-talk-language-mental-illness-stigma
LikeLiked by 1 person
My comment was aimed at the ridiculous exemption offered in the DSM-V for identical psychological symptoms allotted as part of a diagnosis of dysfunction anywhere else.
What I’m saying is that religious belief offers aid and comfort to all manner of ‘crazy’ and privileges it as piety exempt from being otherwise correctly identified as the mental dysfunction it is. And this means all kinds of ‘crazy’ can be expressed as and through religious piety without any requirement to be functional, to be healthy, to be beneficial, to be sane.
And this special exemptions and privileging doesn’t stop here with the believer. It is extended into law where criminal activity is exempted from statute if religious. It is extended into politics where beliefs unable to stand on merit alone are allowed to become part of the public domain issues and influence legislation. It is extended into education where fairy tales and superstition become magically ‘true’ and doubt and skepticism and science vilified.
The dysfunction is granted a special exemption because of the religious moniker, which allows all kinds of ‘crazy’ to run rampant and free causing harm wherever it goes and excused in the name of ‘tolerance’ and ‘religious freedom’.
So, yes, my comment does in fact address how religious belief can and does hide and excuse and exempt mental illness… various kinds of mental illnesses that become obvious once you strip away the religious exemption and special pleading throughout our societies and cultures.
LikeLike
Yes, that’s what your comment addresses, but that’s not what I got from the post.
LikeLike
tildeb, I did a post over a year ago about linguistic creationism (when I thought I invented the concept – if only!). If you get a chance, have a read through it and see what you make of the vocabulary section:
LikeLike
What you and now SB are not just advocating but putting into practice is thinking yourselves justified – under the seductive banner or ‘protecting other people from being offended’- to police the words of others and deciding for others what they may or may not read.
Because this approach is authoritarian and intolerant of free speech, we have a word for that – one I’m sure will cause offense – but I dare not use it or be moderated/banned like I have been over at Siruisbizinus for speaking truth to power (just like his avatar supposedly represents). And thus your moderating rules accomplish for you what you want me to say in a way you want me to say it rather than provide a forum for me saying what I mean to say in the way I think it needs to be said.
Please read this that explains why what you are advocating is such a huge problem for all of us and one that actually causes real harm.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link, it’s interesting reading. I’ll try and look into the topic in more detail and respond in full at some point. But my initial thoughts (while I have time) are that we are in a discussion forum – that’s certainly how both of us have styled our blogs. It’s about conversation and discussion of issues.
So, my first point is that our comments here relate directly to personal attacks, which in anyone’s world – using critical thinking skills in terms of outcomes for exchange of information, or just in terms of respect and common decency – are unacceptable. Secondly, we’re not talking about suspecting Christians have mental health problems and being concerned enough (as you would be in such a case) that they can access appropriate treatment, it’s about using throwaway remarks about mental illness and mental health conditions as insults. Therefore, making many people who have any kind of mental health issue feel sad and probably rubbish about themselves.
Most of us, you included I believe, get involved in discussions with Christians because we believe there is a better, more rational and nicer way for human society to function. We don’t need to personally attack someone’s character to make our points and we don’t need to use vocabulary that clearly undermines a vulnerable group of people in society.
And, for me, all that has nothing to do with shielding people from topics that might upset them, as in the article you link to.
LikeLike
Let’s flip this around for a moment.
What would you call the behaviour of someone who refuses by choice rational beliefs connected to the reality we share and intentionally takes on board irrational beliefs not just disconnected from the reality they purportedly describe but demonstrably contrary to it? Also, the irrational beliefs have already been thoroughly and exhaustively discredited. They have been shown to be discredited ideas and still the person merely shrugs and continues promoting these irrational beliefs disconnected to the reality they purport to describe as if true, as if they really do describe what is the case and is knowable as such without any evidence to back this up, any means to link the beliefs to reality, yet continue behaving as if these beliefs deserve not just some level of confidence but virtuous certainty that it IS the case and the person will brook no doubt about it?
Now, what’s your word for this behaviour?
Remember, you can’t use any word in a pejorative sense that might stigmatize someone.
Suggestions?
LikeLike
Word for this behaviour?
Stubborn, stuck-in-their-ways, unimaginative, averse to change (sorry, more than one word), blinkered, fearful, uninformed. But most prominently natural. Adherence to the belief system of our community or society is the most natural thing a person can do. Change on the scale you seem think should be obvious takes generations, centuries. Most people are just getting on with living their lives and are quite happy with the underpinning of the traditional belief system that everyone else around them is quite happy to believe.
In the 1980s, you probably would have called them a spastic or a mongol or a retard. In the 1970s in the UK you would have called them Irish. In the 1950s you might have accused them of behaving like a woman. Hopefully you are able to understand how using these words as insults is unacceptable in 2015. Or would you fight for your right to stigmatize any group of people who happen to be part of your current lexicon?
LikeLike
Would you not stigmatize anyone that openly promoted racism?
The entire country of South Africa was stigmatized for a period.
Was this right, or was it after so many attempts at open negotiation the only ( apparent) way to force the government to instigate the dismantling of Apartheid and call for a general election?
Should those that openly promote Young Earth Creationism not be stigmatized, especially in light of what so many deconvertees suffered and those children still trapped in
this cult are forced to suffer?
LikeLike
My big problem with YEC’s is the misreporting of the evidence. Statements like “there are no transitional fossils” is an outright lie, yet I see it an similar incorrect statements repeated as though they are truth.
Sean Carroll in his encounter with a group of YEC’s gave them a collection of humanoid skulls and asked them to arrange them in any order they wanted. When they finished the task he observed that they had arranged them in exactly the same order as they are found in the fossil record. If these folk could just look at the evidence independent of their biblical bias the scales would fall away from their eyes.
LikeLike
So how do we break down such barriers of (seemingly) intransigence?
LikeLike
I don’t know Ark, opinions vary, I think it varies from person to person.
LikeLike
I cannot fathom how such people are allowed to open private schools.
The ACE ( Accelerated Christian Education) foundation is in many English speaking countries around the world, including right here in South Africa, I was flabbergasted to discover.
They should be outlawed. And at least this is what former YEC and ACE pupil Johnny Scaramanga is trying to achieve in England.
LikeLike
Ark, just like Tildeb, you’re completely off on the wrong track. This is about stigmatising people who have mental health problems by using vocabulary associated with them to insult people for what you essentially believe is irrationality. It’s has nothing to do with Christians per se. Why do you use ‘crazy’, ‘mental’ or whatever? To make the point that you think they are brain dirt. The end effect of misuse of words like that (however long they have been used like that within society) is loading ‘crazy’, ‘mental’ or whatever with hugely negative connotations, making people who have mental health problems avoid diagnosis or feel ashamed. Can you not understand something so basic?
LikeLike
When I use a term such as crazy or nuts I am using in the colloquial sense.
As you might say to a girlfriend: ”You paid how much for that dress! You’re crazy.”
Substitute this with: ”You believe humans domesticated dinosaurs? You’re crazy.”
If I state a religious person is likely delusional I mean it. And Victoria has demonstrated through her studies that this is likely an accurate observation.
LikeLike
**bangs head on brick wall**
Maybe when a close member of your family is medicated for a mental illness, the quips won’t roll so quickly off your tongue. There are many ways to express ourselves, and we can certainly attempt to choose words that don’t marginalise or offend others.
But if you arrogant dickheads want to swing around unnecessary vocabulary you have been told hurts other in a failed attempt to bully Christians (or anyone else you please) into submission because your arguments have failed you and personal attacks are your only route, be my guest. I’m embarrassed for you.
(apologies for offending anyone by making the point in this manner)
LikeLike
I rarely use these words as a rule and having illustrated the context in which I might use a word such as ”crazy”, or ”delusional” you now resort to making vain attempts at maligning should one one of my family genuinely suffer from a mental illness.
Though I have suggested they seek professional help, even if it was suggested with a side dish of acerbic.
Calling someone a Dickhead is not a reference to a mental illness.
As for bullying Christians:
Well, FTS. When they stop bullying kids, condemning all and sundry to hell and using their god and their goddamn religion as a reason for numerous rotten practices, not least of all war then maybe I’ll tone it down.
Until then, they can go
fuckwhistle themselves.LikeLike
And you highlight exactly the problem. In every alternative ‘acceptable’ synonym you offer, you utterly fail to capture the intentional acceptance of irrationality I mean to criticize. And the best word we have for this is ‘insane’ meaning extreme foolishness or irrationality. I do mean exactly this in its extreme sense; these people choose to be this foolish for irrational reasons. The vernacular term for this irrationality is ‘crazy’.
None of your synonyms conveys this meaning.
But who cares, right? Your concern is about stigmatizing those who suffer from irrationality. And you feel we cannot have that. What’s already forgotten is WHAT is being criticized and WHY it is being criticized. You focus only on HOW and then feel fully justified to censor if this doesn’t live up to your We-Must-Not-Offend standard (because you assume the language stigmatizes). What you don’t realize is that your standard based on ‘offense’ is extremely foolish and irrational itself because it is insidious and causes harm.
How so?
That YOU find this term ‘crazy’ to be offensive (on behalf of those who suffer from various social and cognitive dysfunctions who you don’t want to stigmatize with the same word) is YOUR problem. As I said to SB in my deleted comment, I DO differentiate between those who suffer from some unintentional dysfunction and those who choose to promote the irrational as if rational. But the very idea that you feel you have every right to police which words I may use to convey meaning – meaning that is understood in common parlance based on dictionary definitions (in the name of protecting delicate snowflakes who will melt if they are offended) – is the very heart and soul of modern day liberal fascism all too popular these days – a popular undertaking that is undermining legitimate criticism and silencing it for misguided reasons.
That’s right: fascist. Offended? GOOD! Now let’s find out if my criticism is warranted, shall we? Or should my comment be immediately censored and deleted because you feel offended?
After all, we wouldn’t dream of stigmatizing fascists; they might melt if criticized. Are you a snowflake in need of protection from such an assault or do you have the intellectual fortitude to have your opinions and beliefs challenged?
This removal of challenge is what you are promoting (under the guise of ‘protecting’ snowflakes): self-censorship of speech to avoid potentially causing offense (and stigma, of course) rather than looking at what is being criticized and the reasons for that criticism. Something rather important is being lost with this ruling of yours, don’t you think?
In principle (before we get to the reprehensible practice of demanding self-censorship based on causing offense), how is this demand you make on others to self-censor to suit your language usage rules any different that Islamists who demand that you respect their right to dismantle your rights out of some misguided notion that you must not say anything critical that might cause offense? Because if you do dare to criticize this practice , then these dime store liberals will form a kumbaya circle with anyone – including violent Islamic jihadists – and accuse you of promoting intolerance. And – in the same way you and SB advocate and practice – you will be subject to the censorship of natural allies who now act on behalf of those they should not support, and for very short-sighted and trivial reasons – the fear of causing offense. What is lost are the reasons pertaining to the core of that criticism, the ability to explore these criticisms for merit, but because it may cause offense they must not be uttered… or, if written, deleted.
This is an insidious attack against the very principle of free speech and denies us the benefits accrued from speaking our minds, which is why it is an insidious form of fascist masquerading as tolerance.
LikeLike
Oh wow! I didn’t realise I was so utterly rubbish at explaining things. You are still talking about something that isn’t related to either the original post or what I’ve continued to attempt to clarify. I seriously can’t imagine what the disconnect is. I wonder if someone like Roughseas would be kind enough to look over the conversation and try and word it in a way that you (and Ark, it seems) can understand.
“But who cares, right? Your concern is about stigmatizing those who suffer from irrationality.” What, what, what? While I completely disagree with the venomous hatred that seems to be oozing from your every pore for anyone who is religious (that’s most of the world), stigmatising religious people is NOT what SB’s post is about and it’s not what I’ve been saying. The concern is about stigmatising people who have genuine mental health issues by taking vocabulary that is technically relating to their conditions (crazy, insane, lock up in padded cell, need your medication etc) and using it as a derogatory insult for people with whom you disagree, whose ‘crime’ is essentially (from your point of view) irrationality. In throwing round these words in an effort to belittle and shame religious people, to show them how little regard you have for them and their thinking processes, you are showing how belittling, shameful and not worthy of regard you think people with mental health problems are. There’s nothing shameful about having any kind of mental health illness, we’re all one event away from having one in our lives. Just like there’s nothing shameful about having learning disabilities that could make it okay to call someone a ‘spastic’, just like there’s nothing shameful about being Irish that could make it okay to call someone ‘Irish’ because you think they are stupid or illogical. Do you understand any of that or are you wanting to rant for an hour more about your freedom of speech? You went on someone’s blog who is open about having mental health problems and unleashed an ignorant and horrendous tirade of insults based around mental health problems and vocabulary connected with them, and all you can moan about is your free speech being attacked. Honestly, stand back and look at yourself.
This has nothing to do with protecting religious people, you could be attacking any group or people using that vocabulary and this point would be made. I am asking people not to use that kind of vocabulary out of respect for anyone with mental health problems. If you don’t understand how and why language evolves, your are as irrational as the Christians you are attacking.
LikeLike
VW, you say ” The concern is about stigmatising people who have genuine mental health issues.”
I understand that. I understand that the issue about my language using the term ‘crazy’. I understand that you don’t want me to use the term ‘crazy’ in a pejorative way as I did because that stigmatizes those people with, as you say with a hand-wave, a “mental health illness.”
I disagree. It is the negative result of behaving described by the symptoms that stigmatizes the those who fit the definition of the term ‘crazy’. Being crazy is not a good thing. It’s a bad thing. And the behaviour can be corrected through efficacious therapy.
You also forget that the point of the post was talking specifically about irrationality that “cannot be helped.” This is the hook on which the We-Must-Not-Offend hangs its hat. Religious belief CAN be helped, VW, so it’s not an involuntary mental illness but a voluntary irrationality; it’s deluded thinking accepted and venerated and called a virtue… a faith-based way of thinking worthy of contempt. SB argues that irrationality itself in the form of delusion is a mental illness (there’s the cover), that he cannot see how any mental illness is “a voluntary state of being,” and that we therefore cannot call religious belief delusional thinking (‘crazy’ in the vernacular) without stigmatizing those who are crazy.
I get it. But I don’t agree. And I don’t think either of you has thought it through.
I think because there is choice there is a self-directed ‘cure’: namely, rational non belief compared to irrational belief. I think you and SB are offering cover in the name of stopping stigmatization of those with involuntary mental illness to those who choose irrational thinking that empowers delusion with respectability with this misguided notion that this religiously promoted and respected kind of ‘crazy’ is something other than crazy. But it IS crazy!
As I pointed out, the diagnostic manual (the DSM-V) used for identifying mental health illnesses itself exempts these identical symptoms if they are religious beliefs! This is like saying that if you’re religious you cannot be diagnosed with a mental illness related to the irrationality of those beliefs. And so you cannot be crazy; you’re simply religious. That’s why I explained:
So, SB, I don’t see how legitimate criticism can be leveled against this extraordinary privilege without first accepting that ‘crazy’ finds a home and safe harbour under the guise of religious belief. This is a real problem that opens the door to many dysfunctional mental health concerns and bizarre and damaging behaviours that are then allowed and even promoted to flourish under the protection of it being ‘religious’. Real harm comes to real people for tolerating and privileging this home for crazy. So I don’t see how one can even begin to change this allowance and remove the privilege without calling a spade a spade. I think such honesty is a necessary beginning to recognizing that there is even an honest problem.
LikeLike
OK, OK, what do you want me to say? Because I want to swear, and if I can’t swear, I’m not adding to this convo. Up to you.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, that’s fine. I’d be interested to hear your take on it. After I appealed for your help, I looked back on the post and saw you took something similar from it as Ark and Tildeb in your comment, so although I hope you might see it from the other side, I’ll brace myself for another attack. 🙂
I see a lot of parallels with language that was openly used and still is that demeans women, that’s why a figured you might find a better way of expressing it. But it seems that everyone is quite happy to imagine that religious belief is in fact like a mental illness, and that the insulting language is justified for both Christians and the mentally ill …
LikeLike
Slunk off to Spain for a couple of days. Figured 1500 words was too long for a comment so did you a post 🙂 Trouble is, I agree with all of you in various ways. Odd really, it’s unlike me to do that, but I can’t come down either way. Both are right. Unlike Christianity which is truly off the wall. Oops!
LikeLike
Many Christians are sure that the Christian god God exists because they don’t understand how it is possible for anything to exist in his absence.
This is the same ‘argument’ from most religious folk, Christian or not. It’s called the argument from incredibility. And, true, many thinking people understand why this isn’t an argument for anything but a shortcut to believing whatever divine critter one has been taught to believe.
So, basically, I’m not perturbed by the idea that people believe in a creator. I’m not so much perturbed as I am disappointed in the spectacular failure of imagination to do so. This is such a little god compared to the vastness, violence, hostility, lethality, and utter indifference shown to us by the universe. This fact – and the accounts from astronauts talking about the earth and its people as a single thing – should draw us together but the fracturing by small concerns like religious belief is what we do without a wider and justifiable view of our place in the universe.
What really confuses me is how they reach the conclusion that the Middle Eastern god of the Jews is the obvious creator behind the curtains. As demonstrated time and again, there is no link between the ‘arguments for God’ and this small and venal and capricious projection people spend so much time and energy and effort trying to make real. Lift the attention away from the specific gods asserted to be real and we find this generic ‘sense’ of some organizing agency to the cosmos not because it’s real but because that how our brains work: extending what we know of ourselves outwards so that we can then activate our neuroprocessing to switch to this ‘outside’ view. Because we are agencies, we project the same outwards and expect natural processes to have equivalent agency… and then argue about the intentions and purposes and meanings such an agency would have in ways that we can personally understand. But all of this is really quite silly when we remember just how capable we are of projecting and how easily we forget that we do this all the time. On the one hand, when we assume our projections must be true, we fool ourselves. And religious belief comes with no checks and balances to remind us what it is we are actually doing. Science, on the other hand, does and its production of practical knowledge is clear evidence of its utility that deserves much higher confidence than any religious projection that has exactly none.
My challenge to Christians is: even if you’re insufficiently educated to fully understand how existence could be possible without a creator, why would the Christian god God be the obvious answer? Indoctrination supported by social benefit, pure and simple. No one wakes up one day and ‘deduces’ this god from nature; one has to learn to believe in this belief.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What he said …
LikeLike
Another Wally-confounding lengthy rude rant by the Ark, I see.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Quite. More culture in a yogurt.
LikeLike
“accounts from astronauts talking about the earth and its people as a single thing”
Oooh, I like that! Never heard it before.
“we find this generic ‘sense’ of some organizing agency to the cosmos not because it’s real but because that how our brains work”
Well, exactly. But we’ve got to go one step at a time …
“No one wakes up one day and ‘deduces’ this god from nature”
It’s interesting how they think they do though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Violet, this is an interesting matter you raise in this post. Most scientists, such as Paul Davies, who have contemplated the universe and wondered whether their might be a some sort of creator behind it, tend to have in mind a deist type concept, not the Christian God. This is because they understand that the creation stories in the Bible don’t sit well with science.
I like the take of Dr David Eagleman on this topic:
LikeLike
Absolute bunk. His gross and intentional misrepresentation of New Atheists (he calls them ‘neo-atheists’ for some weird reason) and their philosophical ‘commitment’ to non belief by claiming that their assumption ‘science’ has all the tools required to answer all the questions is absolute bunk. This is the foundation of his argument – a straw man that no New Atheists I have ever read take – is done to sets up the rest of talk. I can only presume he has done this to position his ‘middle ground’ to ask for Templeton money. There is no other valid excuse for this smear job.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I thought it was a good presentation. The key point as I saw it was that there are some things we can’t be certain about so consequently it is prudent to keep an open mind.
LikeLike
An open mind for what? Superstitious nonsense or evidence? New Atheists are wide open to evidence to inform their beliefs and this guy tells us – incorrectly let’s be clear – that’s not the case when it comes to ‘fundamentalist’ atheists “neo-atheists”.
He also promotes this false dichotomy that there is a middle ground between what is the case (and what we consider probable enough to warrant a degree of confidence) and what isn’t. Woo is woo is woo and being ‘agnostic’ about its claims based on superstitious belief alone is intellectually bankrupt.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link, I only have time for the first five minutes. Maybe I’ll get back to the rest another time.
“there are many questions that are beyond the toolbox of science”
I think this is obvious, isn’t it? We’re a relatively clever species but it would be silly to think in the vastness of the universe that we’ll ever understand (relatively) anything.
What we can understand is ourselves, and something about the journey of huwomankind. We understand why we want to believe in a designer/creator and we know that we have been making up imaginative stories throughout the world as a result of this desire. I personally feel that’s all we need to know.
LikeLike
Just sitting under the fig tree enjoying the scenery………..and watching the fisherman dangle his bait………..but thinking about the ‘confidence’ enjoyed by that rather large man, named Goliath of Gath, while he thought he would easily dismiss that young man David…………..
little did He know there was this one smooth stone…………and the fact that the slingsmith had behind him the God of the living………….where the false confidence and Mr.arrogance came crashing to the earth…..lifeless.
but your last line there V, God is much larger than the God of Christianity. The opening paragraph (thank you very much for quoting entirely) sets the table as in, blood, air, water, dirt…..things existing before any believer or unbeliever walked the earth.
…..here comes the avalanche of insults and disagreement by the patrons at the pub, but know of course the evidence you seek is the evidence you deny.
(and maybe to be fair, you should suggest to your readers they actually read a post they are commenting on, lest they appear as fools) Hard sayings are hard to swallow because of the lump of pride in the throat.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Maybe, just maybe if you took the time to offer a well reasoned adult comment instead of your continual ‘drive by’ nonsense people might treat you with a little more respect. But while you continue to trot out your pseudo metaphysical diatribe and behave like the
dickheadtwit you continually portray yourself to be others will simply treat you with utter contempt and disdain.Even Jesus would simply respond with ”Say what?”
LikeLike
“Just sitting under the fig tree enjoying the scenery”
Is that that fig tree the benevolent god character Jesus cursed in a petty strop because there was no fruit on it?
Your comments are an acquired taste, and I think I’ve acquired it – thank you for such poetic input. Please feel free to deal with each of the questions if you think you have any answers.
LikeLiked by 1 person
‘Is the same fig tree……………….?’ No vw, it is a different fig tree.
But the shade offers the same inspiration as it were. You must have never heard about the parable of the fig tree though as it relates to the nation of Israel.
LikeLike
I feel it in my bones. I just KNOW!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just like ColorStorm!
LikeLike
I would like to see a Christian actually take on the most logically sound, excuse free explanation of this world: The Owner of All Infernal Names. It appears they’re terrified of the prospect and won’t even touch it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Oh I see! Is she female?
LikeLike
The Impartial Observer is 😉
LikeLike
Hi there violetwisp 🙂
Thanks for your comments on my recent blog post…thought I might duck over here to yours!
I must say I am a little overwhelmed and taken aback by all these challenges to christians you’re putting out there! Good on you though – keep us on our toes and make us explain stuff better (you do make it a little tricky for us to defend ourselves though with all the things you’ve already decided we’re completely wrong about though….;) )
However, in response to this your most recent challenge “…even if you’re insufficiently educated to fully understand how existence could be possible without a creator, why would the Christian god God be the obvious answer?” I would say that many a christian has in fact seriously thought about the possibility of existence without a creator – because of course, that is absolutely a possibility. I certainly have and christians I know (who grew up in fact as atheist or in another religion such as Hinduism) take all views, religious or non-religious pretty seriously. So we, like most people, have probably pondered the same things as you, but just come up with a different answer is all. And I don’t think the God of christianity is necessarily the obvious answer.
I’d love to say more about why I think christianity is a good answer to existence BUT in all sincerity, if you really want to know more about the christian worldview, you’re going to have to read more of the bible for yourself (even though I know that as a book you think it’s just all plain wrong). The thing is, one really can’t get very far in understanding why christians think the way they do unless you try to take the bible at face value (even just for the purposes of honest research). And a little bit of honest research into ancient near eastern history (or at least reading scholarly opinions) would also be a helpful start to appreciating the way this historical book has been put together. Even of you don’t believe the claims the bible makes (many historians who study the bible as a historical document don’t believe it’s claims to be true), it really is fascinating to see how it all fits together, in the same way ancient Hindu or Buddhist writings are also incredibly interesting.
Anyway, back to your point – is the christian God the obvious answer to existence- no, why should it be? But it is definitely one comprehensive answer on offer, and it goes without saying that it’s the one i like the best. By far.
But, seeing as I’m new to your blog, still finding my way around, just wondering – do you dislike all religions as answers to existence equally? Or is is just christianity that you especially don’t like?
Nice to find your blog…it’s certainly got the old cogs in this head turning!
LikeLike
May I issue a little apology – some further reading on your blog has highlighted to me that you have indeed been challenged by many a christian before regarding your overall knowledge of the bible – apologies to further add to those challengers! It’s getting late over here in Aus. but I’d love to have a go at answering some of your other challenges to christians sometime soon…
LikeLike
Hi Serenity, thanks for stopping by and reading some of the posts. It’s nice to have some input from another style of Christian. If you have some thoughts on the bullet point questions in the post, I’d be interested to hear them.
“do you dislike all religions as answers to existence equally? Or is is just christianity that you especially don’t like?” Good questions. Yes, I concentrate Christianity – given that it was the religion I was brought up with (brainwashed, one might say) and it’s the dominant religion everywhere I’ve lived. I’m more familiar directly with the holy book and beliefs of Christianity, and more conscious of the harm it’s caused people around me. I guess in the same way an atheist in India might concentrate discussions on Hinduism or one in Syria would be more concerned with Islam than Christianity. Of course that’s not to say that any functioning superstitious belief system in this day and age isn’t a cause of dismay for me … 😀
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course that’s not to say that any functioning superstitious belief system in this day and age isn’t a cause of dismay for me … 😀
Such as the timetable for British Rail, for example.
LikeLiked by 2 people
it appears V, that many christians have concerns about your knowledge of their good book and Serenity here has added to the count. Maybe you should do well tell them you read the damn book and now use it as a door stop in the garage
LikeLike
I guess it’s an easy assumption to make. They don’t necessarily know that many atheists who make a fuss about Christianity do so because they used to be there. Besides, I did concede to someone else a while ago that I’ve never read it cover to cover, and some of them think that the key to understanding lies in doing that. I can’t counter that unless I make a big time hole in my life to dedicate to reading it. Maybe in a few years …
LikeLike
Anyone who tells me that I would ask them if there is an explanation for how donkeys talk, how big fish become transporters and many others.
LikeLike
I don’t know makagutu…it’s just hard to have decent conversations about christians thoughts on this that and the other,or for a christian to respond to challenges put out by violet, when you’re not allowed to reference ‘the good book’ and make suggestions that a more detailed reading, from cover to cover is best, does actually go a long way to answering many (although definitely not all) of the kinds of questions VW is throwing out there…my bible wouldn’t make a good door stop anyhow…too small
LikeLike
I don’t know whether reading it cover to cover is really useful other than to be able to say I did read it.
A small bible still has uses
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was trying to work out how many Bible’s I have in my house. I started counting and got this far:
– ESV;
– NIV;
– TNIV;
– NRSV;
– Good News;
– NASB;
– Holman Apologetic Bible;
– Message;
– Phillips;
– King James;
– NKJ;
– NEB;
– Oxford with Apocrypha.
But I think there might be more.
LikeLike
I do have some thoughts on your bullet point questions in the post and I would love to offer my two cents worth. I have busy day (kid-wrangling) tomorrow but will get back to you when I get a spare moment (You are all over the challenging parts of the ‘holy book’ and I’m going to have some trouble keeping up with the pace of your blog I expect…my mum brain is pretty foggy a lot of the time!).
I know so many people have sadly had christianity shoved down their throats/brainwashed into them as they were growing up…and I think that is so, so wrong. I often feel like offering a deep apology on behalf of christianity for all the religious/dogmatic/authoritarian christians out there. Anyway, anyone who calls themselves a christian is ultimately a human first and well, humans are complex, and never perfect (sometimes very far from perfect)….
Thanks for explaining your position on other religions…I’m wondering if other atheists here feel the same way as you? Because, in a way, I’d love to see other belief systems put under the microscope in a similar way!
LikeLike
Hi myisleofserenity
When I followed Christianity I tended to get frustrated that many people seemed to attack Christianity but seemed not to attack other religions in the same way. As someone who has fallen out of Christianity my focus is on Christianity and I suppose I would explain it as persuading myself that Christianity is man-made not divine.
My particular focus is on Christianity because that is where I came from and what I know. I had looked at Islam briefly but just a small consideration of the teachings of Islam and how its adherents act are enough to convince me it is wholly human in origin. The fact that groups like ISIS can derive their ideology from their Holy Books without being dismissed out of hand by others in their faith show me that Islam could not at all be divine.
A story like the following shows me that Islam could never be true:
LikeLike
Hi Peter,
I suppose it’s not so much a frustration for me, more a curiosity…
“persuading myself that Christianity is man-made not divine.”…that makes sense, thanks for explaining!
That’s interesting that you are convinced that Islam is wholly human in origin (I am convinced of that too) I couldn’t read the NY Times article to the end…so sad, so appalling. Which brings me to two questions I wanted to ask 1. What is it about Christianity that it different to Islam, in your opinion? If you can fairly easily disregard Islam as man-made, why not Christianity? Or have I misread your comment…are you also already 100% percent persuaded that Christianity is also man-made? If not, what is it that about christianity that makes it harder to dismiss than other religions?
2. Human behave appallingly (your example given above has got to be one of the worst examples of human behaviour), I’m often curious to hear from an atheistic perspective, why? From the stance of atheism, why are people both good and bad (and I mean, why is each human person capable of both good and bad behaviour?) Or at the very least, if the answer is something like, just because we evolved that way, then how does the atheist respond to this, what I would call a problem?
LikeLike
I was committed to Christianity 100% up until about 6 months ago. I really thought I believed with my whole heart. I had even been ordained as a pastor. Then it all fell apart.
I would say I am now 99% convinced Christianity is man-made. I doubt if it ever possible to be 100% convinced.
The hardest aspect of Christianity I found to explain away was Christian experience. However I have come to see that the mind is very complex and I now conclude it is the source of religious experience, these experiences seem real and seem external but I conclude they are likely to be internal.
I admit I could be wrong. I hope I am open to the alternative view.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, I think most people realise they could be wrong (about belief or non-belief or whatever) – it’s not like there is 100% definitive proof one way or another.
How did things fall apart for you?
And what do you mean when you refer to ‘Christian experience’?
LikeLike
Things fell apart so to speak when I concluded that the Bible contained errors.
Christian experience refers to apparent supernatural events like, healing, words of knowledge, feeling the Spirit and the like, especially the more charismatic side of things. But having kept track of prophecies over time, especially those given to me by others, they have not proved reliable.
I have also seen a number of ‘healings’ but after keeping track of them over a period of time it turns out they were not real healings. The people thought they had been healed and seemed better for a while but after a while were worse than before.
There remain some experiences that were odd, that I still don’t understand but I have concluded the mind is very complex. People have told me of visions and near death experiences,dreams and the like. But it is hard to evaluate such ‘evidence’. I have noted that objective studies suggest these experiences tend to align with a persons sub conscious expectations. After all Catholics see visions of Mary and Protestants see visions of Jesus.
LikeLike
Take your time, I totally understand. I’m probably about to go through a period of winding down activity – I’m never quite sure when I fit blogging in anyway, but when baby and child sleeping go to pot, it becomes a near impossibility! You can’t imagine the number of posts that never get posted …
LikeLiked by 1 person
I get it – I don’t know how I find time either…staying up too late is probably the main way…!
So…your bullet points…I don’t have neat answers for everything but I’ll happily throw in my thoughts, seeing as you’re asking/challenging!
1. Does it really matter what gender God is or isn’t? I mean if he’s a God, he can choose to do/be whatever he wants…and it doesn’t seem to me to have much bearing on his goodness (or otherwise) as a God….
3. Are they “stealing” each others stories or using each others stories to make different points? e.g. the ‘Enuma Elish’ (Babylonian creation story) has similarities (e.g. similar order of creation) but some very interesting differences (e.g. creation as a result of a haphazard war of between the gods vs creation as an overly work of art, humans as an afterthought vs humans as the crown of creation and bearing the likeness of creator, nature as ephemeral and accidental vs. nature as good). What if the writer was drawing on contemporary thoughts about creation in order to make a different point.
…which kind of brings me back to your second bullet point, the one I like the best, because, I think it begins to cut to the heart of it all..
2. “He’s benevolent and perfect but he kills and tortures with glee. Is that possible?” (Of course, I would never want to believe in a God like this either, no matter what any spiritual text book said)
Firstly, this God, that we have on trial, does not call himself benevolent. Perfect, yes. Faithful, patient, slow to anger, abounding in love, among other things, yes. Kills and tortures with glee? No, not at all…”For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone”(e.g Ezekiel 18:32). the God of the bible, from the beginning of creation, consistently and always is motivated by love. His justice and mercy is because of love. And, as we know, love does not equal approval/allowing/sanctioning any and every kind of behaviour…and what is love without justice? If there is wrong doing of some kind it cannot be loving to leave the wrong doing unpunished?…He rights wrongs with mercy, justice and love. Ultimately by doing it himself, for his creation, because his creation was never able to fix itself… you know, the famous John 3:16…but it’s all through the bible from Genesis 3:15 onwards…
I think in a way, we have the cart before the horse when we critique God’s dealings with humanity…because the behaviour of humanity (as documented in OT as well as everywhere else) is really bad (e.g. child sacrifice as part of religious rituals)
I’m happy with the christian understanding/solution to this problem rife among human kind (goodness intermingled with not-so-good) – but let’s say the christian understanding/solution is plain wrong – I’d love to hear of some other reasonable options?
“Most people in most cultures believe in the superstition of their culture, or trade up to one offering them a better life (or death). Wonder why you chose the Christian god?”
I don’t know about the stats on “most people in most cultures” but for instance, in Europe, America and Australia I think there is a huge swing away from the previously dominant culture of christianity but in a place like communist China religion is rapidly seeing a surge (Both christian and buddhist apparently http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21629218-rapid-spread-christianity-forcing-official-rethink-religion-cracks). So I don’t think it’s as clear cut as you believe what you grew up with…but choosing a different religion as an upgrade to the one you grew up with, well, that’s probably pretty common…and why would people choose the christian God for their upgrade? Have you ever had people comment here who did ‘upgrade’ to christianity? I grew up with it, so I can’t really answer..
LikeLike
Hi again!
“1. Does it really matter what gender God is or isn’t? I mean if he’s a God, he can choose to do/be whatever he wants…and it doesn’t seem to me to have much bearing on his goodness (or otherwise) as a God….”
There are two things here. First of all, the fact that he’s male is one of the clear pointers that he was thought up by not very imaginative, and arrogant, men. The rest of the shockingly sexist rules found in the OT confirm that. Secondly, if a benevolent god did exist and created this world, it would be unlikely to assign itself gender and create the sense that men are superior to women.
“3. Are they “stealing” each others stories or using each others stories to make different points?” Perfectly possible. Although the other mythical flood story came first.
“And, as we know, love does not equal approval/allowing/sanctioning any and every kind of behaviour…and what is love without justice?…I’m happy with the christian understanding/solution to this problem rife among human kind (goodness intermingled with not-so-good) – but let’s say the christian understanding/solution is plain wrong – I’d love to hear of some other reasonable options?”
Ouch. What is love without patience and understanding? Justice in the form of punishment and revenge is vile and illogical. We know it solves nothing, but brings more misery. I think the more we understand about humans, the more we understand the motivations and the events that cause harmful behaviour. We can’t simply write it off as ‘evil’ requiring ‘justice’. A lack of love in childhood is the most common cause of harmful behaviour in later life – obviously other environmental factors like poverty, lack of opportunity, traumatic events, can impact as well. But the idea that people need punished for ‘badness’ is fast becoming defunct.
“why would people choose the christian God for their upgrade?”
That’s a really interesting question, I might investigate further in terms of what’s happening in China. Here’s a excerpt from a BBC article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14838749
LikeLike
The most telling part of the talking donkey story is that Balaam is not surprised or taken aback when his donkey starts to talk. This of itself should be sufficient to show the reader it is a fable, not an account of something that actually happened.
LikeLike
To your last question there violet, regarding your ‘the christian god God………….’
Good thing I included the word ‘bait…………………..as you set up a false narrative.
The true God has no competitors, and is not one of many ‘gods,’ just so we are clear. God is the God of the dead as well as the living; ie, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He reveals Himself to honest hearts through his word, through nature, and of course through people.
His word is good, verifiable, and truthful.
He is the Creator of all that is, and nature itself bows in obedience. When the Lord in the flesh said to the raging waves ‘peace be still……………’ there was an immediate great calm, and the effect was so stunning that the natural response by the witnesses was: ‘Who is this man?’
If nature heeds to the voice of the Lord, why would any man find fault or argue? After all, it makes sense that He who created water……………..
Then again, at the death of This man, the earth quaked, once more nature answering in reverential awe. So yeah, the reasons abound for the Creator and Redeemer to be worthy of homage, and the mere fact that scripture presents man as completely indicted, and then elevates the same tresspasser, proves the Book is unlike any other, and it takes a tad of dishonesty to disagree.
There is no other book on earth with the credibility, wisdom, and inspiration, bringing grace and truth never before seen. Then again, there is only one God, and He is much more than your Christian God. He is the God of glory, long before any believer walked the earth.
We tread His carpet of dirt, and take for granted each step and every breath.
(Fully expecting the mocking to follow from many fronts)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi ColorStorm, you have previously told me that the words of the Bible are set for ever in Heaven. However if that is so, why are there five different endings to Mark’s Gospel found in the manuscripts?
Which is the version set in heaven?
LikeLiked by 1 person
@pete
Yea, like the devil has no interest in scripture. But you ask the wrong questions.
Which version takes a man from darkness to light? Which version offers forgiveness of sin and an inheritance?
Which version presents the Christ of God? Which version promotes Israel as the apple of God’s eye. They all do. None of them do. You decide.
But which version speaks to you in the language you were born? To some, it’s the Readers digest version, to others, it is the RV, the Niv, or the kjv, but God uses many tools to give man no excuse.
LikeLike
Well one version of Mark’s Gospel ending prompts people to handle snakes in Church.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yep, and that was proven to be correct on the island of Melita when the VIPER attached itself to Paul.
Some were impressed, and no reason why you should not be either.
Not a big fan of people who handle snakes purposefully, as if they are in a circus.
I’m thinking Paul would say: ‘what’s up with that…’
LikeLike
You do know, of course, that there are no vipers in this place, and according to zoologists there never were .
For what it’s worth for those who may be interested, vipers’ natural habitat in this region is dry and rocky hillsides not driftwood on shorelines! Furthermore they hibernate during the winter. This story is simply fiction.
LikeLike
I’ll take the incontrovertible words of scripture, you are certainly welcome to your popular but careless opinion.
LikeLike
So, you believe then that stripes and patterned pelts on animals came about in the animal kingdom because Jacob had his animals have sex in front shaped sticks?
Interesting!
LikeLike
Another great verse I didn’t know about!
LikeLike
Me neither, until this week… and by Veles Most Awesome Name, am I going to use this! 🙂
LikeLike
And I will trust my Napkin Religion because it says it’s the one true religiion right here on this napkin.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Your attempt at humor regarding a serious topic will be filed under the category of ‘foolish jesting.’
LikeLike
Yes it is foolish jesting, CS. But it is the identical reasoning you use and it is extremely foolish.
LikeLike
Maybe for starters tildeb, you may care to admit, that there is no other book on earth such as the word of God.
Even if you hated every word, did not believe one word of it, you could not honestly deny its past, merit, influence, laws, grace, wisdom, history, geography, hope, promises, and confident assertions.
Even the devil would chastise you for such denials.
LikeLike
Hand waving. Your reasoning is identical and it doesn’t become any less foolish by smearing this pig with the lipstick of piety.
LikeLike
Careless opinion? Really. Oh joy. Please share with us all your encyclopedic frakking knowledge of zoology and Mediterranean geography you sanctimonious, fatuous arse-hat.
Sorry. I continually forget. This is what an incontrovertible brain-washed Dipshit like you will always do. Anything less will mean you are ultimately obliged to face the truth – that your worldview is simply based on vaporous fantasy and outright lies.
And to acknowledge this is enough to scare the shit out of you once and for all.
But you want to know something? The truth will set you free and the truth is pretty good.
You can quite easily get to enjoy it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
that your worldview is simply based on vaporous fantasy and outright lies.
This is exactly true. Colourstorm will not allow a comment of mine appear on his post about gun violence which proves the Australian success story in enacting a total gun ban. Those types of “facts” disturb him.
LikeLike
I have decided to completely avoid any future interaction with him.
As Violet objects strongly to the use of certain types of language that could be construed as hurtful to mentally disturbed people I have to assume that Colorstorm is one such and thus it would be unbecoming of me to attempt to engage him in any meaningful conversation – not that he has ever been capable of.
I graciously leave it to the rest of you t try and disseminate some sense of what ever bat-shit crazy he is trying to push.
Best of luck.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I just read your dialogue with Colorstorm, John on his blog . He is simply one sick fuck.
And as for Tricia’s reply. Phew! That level of ambivalence takes my breath away.
LikeLike
Unbelievable, right? And now you can see why he won’t allow my comment. It quotes this from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/08/02/did-gun-control-work-in-australia/
.
I have 5+ comments there which he is censoring… It’s really quite pathetic
LikeLike
Why not do a post? I’ll reblog it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
No point. After all those little kids were gunned down with an assault rifle at Sandy Hook, and people like Colourstorm and Tricia still support unrestricted gun access, they have demonstrated that they have no humanity. They are lost, and nothing will help them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
These people really are off the chart. I don’t know if they are truly representative of …. whatever, but after reading that dipshit David ( applied faith), James, Wally , DP, Citizen Tom, and this wanker, CS – and let’s be honest, the women are no better – I am left gobsmacked at the sheer calousness and utter willful ignorance of these people.
Sick just doesn’t even begin to describe.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Agreed.
LikeLike
This brings into sharp focus Violet’s assertion that one should avoid using language that may on the surface denigrate genuinely mentally ill people.
But I struggle to remain wholly passive in the face of such callousness.
Their behaviour is not normal – not in my book.
Reading David, for example, makes me nauseated.
So if I think he is a sick fuck – as I do – is saying it in public or to his face a slight on people suffer with mental illness?
Would we be wrong calling Goebbels a sick crazy bastard? Or Bundy?
How about Duggars?
If these people toss aside what you have just termed humanity why should I show any respect whatsoever?
If they are crazy ans suffering from mental illness the they should be treated for it.
Meantime they have free reign to push their sick agenda and we must be polite?
Er ….
LikeLiked by 1 person
What i find most frustrating is their unwillingness to actually do anything that truly helps. Where on earth do so-called followers of a pacifist, Jesus, get off supporting access to assault weapons!?
LikeLike
Ah …. I know this one. ”Protection.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is ironic that folk that so often want to be like the early church disagree with so much of the early church practices. To name just three aspects:
1) the early church was basically pacifist;
2) the early church was inclined to economic socialism (if not communism);
3) the early church had no interest in politics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The true God has no competitors, and is not one of many ‘gods,’ just so we are clear.”
Really? Even in the Bible the Christian god God is depicted in countless verses as being jealous and angry at other gods. Other gods. One of many gods who thinks he’s the best. In the form of a competitive god in the company of other … gods.
“Among the gods there is none like you, Lord; no deeds can compare with yours.” Psalm 86:8
“I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt” Exodus 12:12
“For great is the LORD and most worthy of praise; he is to be feared above all gods.” 1 Chronicles 16:25
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tkx vwisp-
but you have inadvertently made my point. There is NO God like the LORD.
gods, sure, idols yep. There are NO gods who create………..but the true GOD…………………in the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth.
There you have it.
LikeLike
Except, of course, for El, Yhwh’s father. Your particular god, Colourstorm, was just one of seventy children fathered by El (whose name, not Yahweh’s, is given to Israel: Yisra’el) and his wife, the mother goddess, Asherah. His restyling began in the 7th Century with a shift toward monolatry where he started to be identified with the father, El: el dū yahwī ṣaba’ôt. Then your child god did something really unexpected… he married his mother!
This fact is revealed at two 7th Century sites (Kuntilet Ajrud and Khirbet el-Kom) where Hebrew inscriptions were found that read ‘YHWH and his Asherah’, ‘YHWH Shomron and his Asherah’, and, ‘YHWH Teman and his Asherah.’
Your god, Colourstorm, was a pantheon deity; a menial one no less, who was slowly redecorated by a people undergoing a refurbishment of their own.
Don’t you just love archaeology!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Archaeology has now pretty much proven that the Bible does not contain real history. Yet this is virtually unknown by the general public. Worse still, the apologetic’s continue to push the line that archaeology proves the Bible to be correct. I often see this argument parroted out on blog posts and I wonder if the people have actually consulted the experts.
I suppose what surprised me most was to discover that there is no evidence for Solomon in the archaeology. In the past archaeologists had assumed, because of what the Bible said, that certain discoveries related to Solomon, but when they took away their biblical bias they realised these discoveries were not related to Solomon.
LikeLiked by 2 people
The argument you see parroted over and over again is “The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” This is so wrong it’s hard to know where to even begin. 100 years of archaeology has revealed an entirely alternative history of the early Jews… a rather pedestrian one.
LikeLike
Here ya go, a little context for all the ‘little gods.’
——-And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, Up, make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.
And Aaron said unto them, Break off the golden earrings, which are in the ears of your wives, of your sons, and of your daughters, and bring them unto me.
And all the people brake off the golden earrings which were in their ears, and brought them unto Aaron.
And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.———–
And don’t forget Tammuz, and that great goddess, ‘Diana of the Ephesians,’ which townsfolk cause a two hour riot…………upon hearing of the One true God.
Really, john, give it up already. False gods reveal hearts gone south 100% of the time.
LikeLike
One small problem… Not even Jewish rabbis today believe Moses was a real historical character.
Now, back to the facts: El was your gods father. Isn’t that interesting, Colourstorm?
LikeLike
Of course they do not believe he was real jz. So what. But that would be your problem also.
And many people also think the human body fabricated itself.
And others think the giraffe designed its own long neck, to feed from a tree it never saw, to see enemies it never knew………….
Yep, false views and gods have quite an industry with many paying customers.
LikeLike
ColorStorm when I was studying at an Evangelical Christian seminary I was assigned an essay topic to consider the evidence for the Exodus. I looked in depth especially at the archaeological findings and concluded there was no evidence for the Exodus outside of the the Bible. The best evidence in the Bible was circumstantial such as use of some Egyptian names and some desert references.
I was awarded an A for the essay.
LikeLike
Most of the 26 stations mentioned didn’t actually exist at the purported time of the Exodus, rather emerged much later, which is one of the ways scholars know today when, exactly, the story was written. Pithom, for example, was founded in the 7th century BCE, not the 13th.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And Colourstorm, just so you know: It was only in the post-Exilic period (after exposure to monotheistic Zoroastrianism in Babylon) did monolatry give way to Judaic monotheism where the Canaanite pantheon was thrown out and the “sons of God” (the 70 children of El, including Baal, the eldest son) were called upon to worship Yahweh as the Divine King (Psalm 29:2).
Don’t you read your bible? It’s all there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
In case you’re interested in the facts, here’s a wonderful book published by Oxford Scholarship Online on the matter:
“The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel’s Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts”
http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/019513480X.001.0001/acprof-9780195134803-chapter-4
LikeLiked by 1 person
Read his bible? John, did you bump your head this morning?
Colorstorm, like so many Fundamentalists receives his religion and bible study via a controlled form of theological drip feed, carefully administered from the man in the pulpit or at the head of the church ( who recommend selective reading) after brow beating him into submission.
Thus broken and cowed, the mind is now ready to be filled with any nonsense that reinforces the believer’s own image of him/herself: namely that of a dirty sinner not worthy of anything but the saving grace of a genocidal meglomaniacal despot.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, I know… But I live in the hope that one day people like Colourstorm will actually “look” at the religion they were handed and wonder, “Hey, perhaps I should look at this critically, just to make sure I’m not acting all stupid here…?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, James82 said such vital information helped him. And as Peter points out, this stuff is just not made available to the Man In The Street – or Lion, as the case may be.
( even though it is in the damn bible, for christsake!
We have discussed this at length, over numerous blog posts, and as has been suggested, only when the Jews literally come out en-masse and state it is all a fabrication will Christianity be left in such a quandary they will simply have to react.
It’s all very well Catholic theologians like Ray Brown tacitly admitting that Adam and Eve, the Virgin Birth etc are nothing but myth, it needs the Jewish community, from top down to push the scientific and historical truth.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I’m think about re-running my archaeology posts. Revamp them, update them, and get them out.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I liked Ray Brown, I read his 1,000 page introduction to the New Testament. He pointed out that Luke was clearly not a reliable historian and that Mark’s gospel shows a lack of understanding of Galilean geography.
Ray Brown observed that a fundamental misunderstanding about the first 11 chapters of the Bible and the last book Revelation had been most unfortunate.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yes, I have read some of the things he has written ( not this particular tome) and he does tend to be somewhat circumspect in his ”condemnation” 🙂
It seems many theologians are becoming stuck between a rock and a hard place, and this is why the Clergy Project got off the ground and why so many clergy are leaving the ”profession”. But for others, being an out of work preacher does not hold that many job opportunities and no doubt quite a number are biting their tongue and praying (sic) for some form of deliverance.
Cognitive Dissonance is a bitch.
LikeLike
Pingback: we must be reading different books | violetwisp
Pingback: Are religious people mad, crazy, insane? | Clouds moving in
Pingback: Lavender or violet? | ColorStorm