LOL -- You really suck at this knowing the Bible game. You whiffed on Jesus snark and you're presenting an obvious perversion of a well-known verse. Your reading of the Psalm (that started this all) remains unaddressed.

Preparedness does not imply that you are subject to the whims of every person who asks questions, regardless of how disingenuous they are.

https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/e...Peter%203%3A15

Why not begin with yourself? Go back and answer those basic questions about your interpretation of the verse you quoted.

Snarky is about mocking, being derisive, being sarcastic. Is this Jesus character? Anger is something different, i.e. anger is sincere and snarkiness is insincere, or at least indirect. So you stand corrected on that.

The quote you cite is hardly indirect or insincere. And even when pharisaical types mocked Jesus, according to the story, his character was not to mock back. Amiright?

If you have a snarky god/savior, by all means let's hear it:

Yes [ ]
No [ ]

But you've already said you do. Jesus is snarky. That's a new attribute, a new character trait for him.

I'm well aware that you can tie your consciousness into knots and come out with the quoted passage is good and moral. For as long as you cling to an epistemology that argues for drinking blood in the eternal life game, you know like in vampire cults, and that bashing babies heads in and stoning children and non-virgins is loving ... you are the one that is disingenuous.

I recently did a lot of research and wrote a book on the subject of the great mystery (note, not the great dogmatism/mythology CERTAINTY), during which time I was very flexible on my positions. I also once proposed faith as an intrinsic good in philosophy class. So, yes, I am capable of changing my positions. You aren't. Running into apologists in this project was, well ... appalling. An insult to the whole project and discussion.

I am not against religion. "My religion is/was an attempt to account for origins, meaning, and morality, as are most all of the other religions" ... is a good thing within limits. "My myths are literal and you go to hell for not being literalist with us" is divisive, manipulative, irrational, Machiavellian and evil.

In attempting to rationally investigate origins and morality, the brutal, jealous vengeful, misogynist, bigoted god of the Old Testament, who never changes, is not a serious discussion point as a literal explanation for the universe. You know this, but compartmentalization allows it to go unchallenged. And that is the religious trick of the mind.

What is most real is what repeats and persists. Scientific and historical investigation is simply a means to identify the patterns. Myth is another way to identify the patterns. To say that myth is invalid because it isn’t scientific or historical is to be completely lost on the point of it all. The reason why we modern people react this way is that we have been conditioned to only link patterns of reality to empiricism, but we are crippling ourselves by doing that because myth can penetrate human consciousness and empiricism cannot.

The best religious stories are ones that deal with patterns of human consciousness. The better we understand the patterns of human consciousness, the more effectively we can act.

If to say myth is invalid misses the point, don't do it. Say it isn't to be taken literally ... like I did. I agree that empiricism can be overrated, just as myth and superstition once were. The primary things to be concerned about in terms of consciousness on these issues are indoctrination and compartmentalization.

Hmm. What is real is what persists? There are a lot more ancient religions and philosophies than Christianity, so they must be even more real. And many of them are. The idea that the earth is flat persists today. Is that real? Well, the belief is real (just like a lot of other BELIEFS are real). That doesn't make the assertion true. Someone's psychotic idea that they are Napoleon or God persists in the self-concept of some people. Does that make it real? In what sense? One of the many problems with religion is, once you literalize myth, you have sacrificed the whole idea of "real." What's real? Whatever I believe. All I have to do is say god told me. And then its the realest, truest thing under the sun. That kind of epistemology is a problem.

I actually don't care what the mini-myths and fables of the religion are. I do care that when investigating the nature, origin and meaning of the universe, the apologist says: "Oh, we settled that. It's the story with the talking snakes, the Garden of Eden, walking on water, loving floods that destroy mankind, magic/miracles galore, aflame non-burning bushes, etc." We have a lot of great scientists studying the nature/origin/meaning questions. Are they ridiculous or is the "answer" of the fundamentalist apologist ridiculous? True enough we get to choose. And one of the possible choices is: "This religion is apocryphal, like so many others, and let me see what I can take from it that is valuable and good." Thus, I don't attack people's religions, never have, but do attack their apologetics since becoming concerned with what the actual reality is.

I reject the empirical dominant framework that makes this type of qualifying necessary. That’s the point I was attempting to make.

The relevant question: “Is Myth useful in identifying perennial patterns?” and the answer is yes.

Irrelevant question: “Is Myth useful within an empirical dominant framework?”

Like I said, it’s ultimately crippling to be stuck in an empirical dominant framework, so I refuse to participate in validating the dynamic that assumes its dominance.. if I can help it.

Here's Jesus' statement again:

Suppose one were to say, "How can you, a moron, say anything smart?" That is the sort of statement that would be mocking and derisive enough that one might possibly decide to complain about it to the mods. (And I have reason to believe that the mods would agree that it's mocking and derisive enough to remove it.)

So yes, Jesus' character includes a high level of snark.

It's always entertaining to watch people project like this.

Evil is a moral pronouncement when coming from a (supposed) god. "Moron" is a gratuitous, personal, and counterproductive insult. Let's see the list of Jesus calling people morons in the scriptures, if you don't mind.




Quit being deceptive on the snarky point. It's not important enough. Save it for the places where you know the religion needs it to be defended.

So is it crippling to over rely on science but not on superstition/myth? That's good. Nice try. Myth is indeed a valuable tool, and pre-science it was the main tool. But here you are 2000 years later still using it as your main tool.

Joseph Campbell was a great mythologist, and was closer to being a god than these Bible characters. When choosing between Campbell and the jealous, savage murderous (of children and maidens) god ... you choose to apologize for and defend the latter. "I'm for the murderous god. Because they said it was holy thousands of years ago. I am unable and unwilling to extricate myself from this system of thought because of peer pressure, threats of going to hell if I do, and some genuine misunderstanding of the whole field . Therefore, I believe it wholeheartedly, I elevate heart and faith over reality and rationality, which, in this perverted upside down system, makes me better than heathens like you (who for some reason are against a murderous/loving spirituality)." LOL

Baseball is also mentioned in the Bible. In the very first of Genesis, in fact:

In the big inning....

Around fifty years ago, Professor Hick presented a simple counterexample to Popper's claim that falsifiability was a necessary component of any scientific claim or theory.

His counterexample was something like this (I'm paraphrasing):

The decimal determination of pi contains at least one sequence of five consecutive sevens.

Note well that if five consecutive sevens were to found in the decimal determination of pi, then the above claim would be proven true. That is, the above theory is in principle confirmable.

Also note, however, that it would be impossible to prove that the above claim is false (since the decimal determination of pi is infinite). That is, the above theory is not falsifiable.

Therefore, the above theory would not count as a scientific claim if one applied the Popper Falsification Criterion.

But, Hick thought that the above claim under scrutiny should count as a scientific claim, since it is empirically verifiable.

Professor Hick was a brilliant Philosopher of Religion until he kinda went off the rails (in my opinion) later in his career. I believe he eventually came to believe in Universalism.

God, being the creator and sustainer of everything in the universe, has authority over all things.

From our perspective, what is right and wrong is objective because God reveals to us the absolute standard that He has devised for His people.


The person in your example would be delusional.


The only "god" that would inspire someone to fly airplanes into buildings would be Satan himself.

No, it would be irrational.

Any "god" that is not the God of the Bible is a false god.

He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. - John 3:36

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Psalm 14:1 (Emphasis added)

Fool = Moron .

Yes. Deism would be a good example. But Deism has no value except to win a debate against an atheist. A personal God would entail religion (in some sense).

Justification for this story, please.

Justification, please.

We Christians need to "live it and share it."

You're welcome to pretend that calling religious leaders "evil" to their face is nothing more than a "moral" proclamation. And that calling them a "brood of vipers" is in no way intended to be an insult, but rather an erroneous biological classification.

It would only continue to show just how hard you're trying to avoid reality. The Jesus you anti-worship is not the Jesus of the Bible.

Peter: Explain the parable to us.
Jesus: Are you still so dull?

Here are Merriam-Webster's first eight synonyms for "snarky": cynical, snide, irascible, irreverent, sarcastic, spiteful, scornful, testy. You're more than welcome to double and triple down on this ... that just makes it just like the rest of your apologetics.

If you know what cynical implies about the psychology of an individual, Jesus as portrayed is not cynical; if you know what snide implies about the psychology and motivation of someone, Jesus is not snide; if you know what irascible means, Jesus is not easily angered (and all scripture is against such a thing in a godly character); if Jesus is sarcastic, spiteful, scornful, and testy ... that is against the counsel of the scriptures on what holiness is.

You mistook direct anger for all these negative character traits. Then double and tripled down, in the process insulting the character of Jesus and giving him traits which clearly are ungodly.

Generally, telling someone else what they believe doesn't work.

You can't call it "objective" because you believe it. If I say I believe the moon is made of green cheese, and since I believe it that makes it objective, that's a totally fallacious use of "objective." You are going exactly the same thing, just substitute "my god" for the moon and green cheese.

So if someone appeals to spirits they are delusional? Except for the spirits and demons of the Bible?

You're god commanded, inspired and committed MILLIONS of killings. That is worse by far than zealots who kill thousands. Is it not?

So you aren't indoctrinated but "Any god that is not the god of the Bible is a false god?" Really ???? Exactly how then does indoctrination and special pleading work to support a religion? Not by saying "all gods but mine are false?" How then?

Pharisees: "Show us a sign."
Jesus: "A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign!?"

---

Pharisees: "Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders?"
Jesus: "Why do you break the command of God?"

FellaGaga:

Your

This! Thank you for proving that Aaron's use of "snarky" was correct. Jesus was heaping scorn on those whom he referred to as a "brood of vipers."