Looking for a serious Christian. Who says something like: "Yes there are gargantuan problems with the faith, with the word, with the doctrine, with the religion, with the god awful history of it ... but I like some of the reported teachings of Jesus. I don't lie for my religion or obfuscate my way thru my apologetics. This is one of thousands of religions attempting to understand the nature of sacred things." And won't that person be surprised to find out the sacred things are not supernatural.

No, your mockery and contempt are hypocritical. Why does it matter that you were fooled before by religion while someone else is fooled now? Both have being fooled on their record. Your development and growth is completely separate from this point.

Behold: the religious mind at work. Yes indeed, gullibility is corrected via critical thinking. Try it why don't you? Rather drink blood and call it moral, and even believing it has magic power?

As I have said, I am mocking the epistemology that exempts its religion from reality, because such, ignoring reality, is a malignant evil under the sun. All is vanity and a chasing after the wind once reality is sacrificed. How do you like the book of Ecclesiastes?

Bulls**t. Now begins the denial and dishonesty. You are claiming that epistemology can be mocked? This is clearly not true. People are mocked.

The PROBLEM is that you don't know what you're talking about.

"Faith" has multiple meanings.

One definition(which is NOT the Biblical definition) is "believing something to be true with NO EVIDENCE and/or ignoring contrary evidence"

If you made an honest effort to understand Christianity, you would KNOW that "blind faith" is UNbiblical.

Since I think that you are a very intelligent person, I have to assume that you are intellectually DISHONEST, not intellectually INCOMPETENT.

The DISHONESTY has been going on for a long time.

Reality is not mocked ... and that's the whole problem with the religious apologetics game of the true believer.

Try a book called The True Believer, by Eric Hoffer. Get a view from outside of it, where it can be realized that just immersing yourself in any of the thousands of dogmas is anything but virtuous (as it is, of course, sold in each and every one of those competing belief systems, and where of course, 99.99% of them have to be wrong all the while blithely and uncritically accepting their sect as true simply by osmosis of mind surrender.)

More caricatures. Now that I know for sure you're not serious, I could safely put you on ignore knowing I wouldn't be missing anything interesting.

Have fun with your blog!

I'm aware of how condescending this might sound, but for the most part, I skim straight over your posts because they are not at all interesting (perhaps my hopes for RGT content are too high?). There is a place for "righteous criticism", but when it is constant and tbh, rather shallow, it just becomes background noise.


Do you think this is an unfair criticism?

Right. It isn't drinking blood and obedience to imaginary gods that is a shallow morality. It's this thread:

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/1...-quot-1766855/

I went to confession on Monday and had a good talk with the priest about my life and poker. When I study the bible and life of Jesus I find a lot of what he said is just demonstrating the power of our minds. God I believe works through our subconscious minds and the prefrontal cortex. Do things that you feel good about doing. If you feel bad eating meat like Jesus said God permits it but it becomes a sin for you to eat meat if you feel bad. Some things everybody will feel bad doing. I talked about poker and the priest because he doesn't fully understand how it is a profession or how a serious player approaches the game told me to think about how many families I could feed in Africa with the money I spend. I explained I don't really spend money but I make money long-term consistently and donate enough to make myself feel good about playing. I find that playing poker and not stressing about money makes me a
nicer person. I'm nicer in my full-time job to others and I donate what I can. I spend minimal amounts on food and the cost of living in Vancouver is expensive so I can rarely make too much. I work in plumbing construction.

Anyway I know it is rationalizing but I think that a lot of the devil as working through our amygdala and thrill and pleasure seeking events. If I play poker pretty emotionless and lowstakes/low variance I don't really get excited. I think most experienced players play pretty systematically and robotic with default strategy and adjustments.

I think as long as I do things to continue to stregthen my connection to God or my prefrontal cortex I think that I'll be alright.

I had a spiritual experience where I felt this electricity or connection and it felt like I was something like a puppet on a string, an electrical invisible string. Since then I have unshakeable belief in God. I know for certain that the electricity that stimulates the brain region where rewards or pleasures are externally sent and controlled by God or his angels through our subconscious it's like they are preprogrammed.

https://heartmindonline.org/resource...frontal-cortex

I thought this post might help people.

Cliff notes:

Donate or help enough people in your daily life that you feel okay or good about playing poker.

BAD JOKE ALERT:

I tithe on a regular basis. When I play in a $5+.50 online poker tournament, I think of the $.50 as my tithe. (The poker room calls it "rake", but I know better!)

It sounds like you're looking for a Christian who is open-minded and willing to acknowledge the issues and history of the Catholic faith.
As far as differences between Catholicism and other Christian denominations go, I've seen some interesting discussions about Catholic vs Baptist beliefs and practices. But at the end of the day, it's all about finding what works for you and what aligns with your own personal values and beliefs.
Just remember, it's okay to question things and be open to new ideas and perspectives. Keep on searching for the truth, and don't be afraid to challenge the status quo.

Hi. I myself am a relatively new Christian and was careful to join a denomination that preached the corrrect doctrine as written in the Bible. What do you think of 1 Timothy 4nlv?

4 The Holy Spirit tells us in plain words that in the last days some people will turn away from the faith. They will listen to what is said about spirits and follow the teaching about demons. 2 Those who teach this tell it as the truth when they know it is a lie. They do it so much that their own hearts no longer say it is wrong. 3 They will say, “Do not get married. Do not eat some kinds of food.” But God gave these things to Christians who know the truth. We are to thank God for them. 4 Everything God made is good. We should not put anything aside if we can take it and thank God for it. 5 It is made holy by the Word of God and prayer.

Surely this is a condemnation of the RC practice of forbidding their priests to marry? Among their other non biblical teachings.

What exactly is Biblical? The Bible is full of contradictions and unclear passages. Anyone arguing for a particular point of view can generally find a Bible verse supporting that view. The real problem is that many believers look at the Bible as being one unified book when in fact it really is a hodgepodge of different writings collects over centuries and bundled together by the early Christian (Catholic) church leaders.

If you actually read the Bible critically, you will note several different thematic parts to it. If the history of the ancient Hebrews were a modern superhero movie, the first book would be the origin story. It speaks of creation of the world, but this is obviously mythology that was verbally passed down amongst the nomadic tribes inhabiting the Middle East. There are some n fact TWo distinct creation stories in the first two chapters of Genesis, which contradict each other in their details. These stories share many features with similar stories originating in Babylon, Sumer and other contemporary nearby cultures. The creation part of the origin story concludes with the flood, again a story held in common with other contemporary peoples, likely based on oral tradition dating back to the breakthrough of the Mediterranean Sea through the Turkish Straits and flooding the area north of modern Turkey, forming the Black Sea. To anyone living in that area, it certainly is understandable that this event would have seemed like a global catastrophe and that nobody could have survived it. Since humans obviously did survive we get the Noah story.

There is a distinct shift at that point from creation of humans to the origins of the Hebrew people. This starts with the story of Abraham and the divine covenant, justifying the later aggression of the Hebrews (or Israelites as they became known after Jacob). It proceeds through the birth of Jacob’s 12 sons, explaining the origins of the 12 tribes of Israel and on yhrough the Exodus, which serves to explain the priesthood and why priests could only come from one tribe (Again a fairly questionable part as to historical accuracy. The Egyptians left quite good written records and there were some pretty noteworthy events associated with the Exodus, like raining frogs, rivers turning to blood, a whole lot of firstborn sons dying all on the same night — you’d think they might have written SOMETHING about it).

There is then another shift from origin story to law book. There are a whole lot of rules that were laid out, not just for what to eat and how to live, but you can also consult this part of the Bible to find out which side of the altar you must sprinkle your RamÂ’s blood on when making a burnt offering (you ARE killing sheep and sprinkling their blood on altars, arenÂ’t you? WouldnÂ’t want you to do anything non-Biblical. Better make sure youÂ’re putting it on the north side of the altar or you might just go to hell).

Once all the rules and regulations are done, we get to the good part — all the conquests and fighting. God wants his people to go to war and take what’s theirs; the hell with everyone living there already. In fact, if we are being Biblical, we should slaughter all the enemy; no surrender, no sparing women and children. Total genocide. Hey, we are just trying to be Biblical, right? The Bible says that God punished Israelite generals who spared the lives of the people they conquered.

We then finally get to the point where the conquests are won and we get some boring details about how to build the temple. Then some more history - we get some good kings and the Israelites win battles, some bad ones and they lose. Finally they get really bad and the Babylonians kick some ass and take them away to Babylon. Since the people repent the Persians come along and free them and there are some final books about rebuilding the temple. Oh, since we strive to be Biblical, there are a few gems in this part, like that if small children make fun of a bald guy, they should be torn apart by bears — just being Biblical again.

Now we get a whole new book assembled by the coverts that Paul of Tarsus gathered to form a new church. Obviously we have the Jesus stories ; canÂ’t have a new religion without him. Of course, there are details in these four stories that donÂ’t quite jive with each other, you know like what Jesus said right before he died. We then get a book about what happened after he died and how his followers began to start a church.

Next we get to the real meat of modern Christianity- the doctrine pushed by Paul of Tarsus as he tried to gather supporters. One of the real big contradictions in the Bible IMO is the whole new covenant crap that Paul pushed. That’s fine and dandy, but it doesn’t really jive with what it says Jesus taught in the Gospels “I come not to replace the law, but fulfill it” and “Not a joy or tittle”, when a disciple asked what part of the law he changed. It’s understandable- the old law from the OT was pretty crappy. I’m sure Paul could have gotten people to convert if they had to give up eating lobster or wash their hands before dinner. There was certainly one big sticking point though. The old covenant required that men had to be circumcised in order to be among the chosen. As long as he was trying to convert Jews, no no problem. Once he went out and tried to get Gentiles, I’d imagine that became pretty much a deal breaker. Hence the whole “New Covenant” BS.

That cop out is almost universally invoked by modern Christians who really donÂ’t want to deal with the old law (well, they ignore the whole new covenant thing when they use OT verses to claim that homosexuality is sinful and should be punished). We then get PaulÂ’s new laws - shut up in church, ladies - and we wrap it all up with a book written by someone who dropped acid, that is supposed to be our future (Seriously, read Revelation; it really is a hoot).

TL;DR version- yea Catholics hold many non-Biblical beliefs. I suspect that whatever belief system you profess likewise does too. One would have to be pretty mentally disturbed or evil to actually live entirely according to what is in the Bible.

Hi. I personally want to be very sure that I follow God's Word not man's. I never heard anyone say that people who wish to live by the Bible are evil or mentally disturbed before but I will try to address your points. Biblical means 'as contained in the Bible'. I understand your opinion 'The Bible is full of contradictions and unclear passages' but the Bible says:

2 Peter 1:20 — KJV

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

So, according to the Bible, your, mine or anybody elses personal opinion or interpretation does not and should not come into it.

I understand every word of the Bible is good:

2 Timothy 3:16–17 — KJV

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

It seems like you have doubts about the Word? Or are confused By it? I say this as you call it a 'hodgepodge' meaning 'a confused mixture' and as mythology which is 'the study of myths'.

Then you mention the Law. I don't know why as this was given to the nation of Israel not to Christians. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:23–25; Ephesians 2:15).

Now, what you call ' the good part — all the conquests and fighting'. Who are we to doubt or critique our maker? The ancient Israelites were commanded by God to completely destroy the peoples of the cities to be taken probably because God knew that sparing a remnant would eventually corrupt some of the Israelites with their paganism. We already knew God is a jealous God, curses the children of those who hate him and will not share space with the enemy.

Elisha and the Two Bears (2 Kings 2:23-25). I can't speak for God or second guess why He would kill those who insulted his prophet, so cannot comment.

'Now we get a whole new book assembled by the coverts that Paul of Tarsus gathered to form a new church. Obviously we have the Jesus stories ; canÂ’t have a new religion without him'

This statement harks back to your doubts about the Bible I guess? Your correct that we can't have CHRISTianity without CHRIST.

' One of the real big contradictions in the Bible IMO is the whole new covenant crap that Paul pushed'

TBH I wish that I had read your whole comment before wasting my time replying to you.

Agent,

I am disappointed but not surprised. The whole “The Bible is God’s word” argument is very common but also very unconvincing. Obviously you can use it to deflect and dismiss any actual criticism of the Bible, but if you think hard about it, the only reason you have to believe that it is true is that somebody told you it is. Maybe it was your parents, a preacher, or whoever, but 99.99% of the time, someone who thinks that the Bible is God’s word thinks that because someone that they trust said so. Very few people actually read the Bible with an open mind and come away believing that it’s the word of any deity AFTER having read it. Most start from the assumption that it’s God’s word, then actually read it, finding justifications after the fact to resolve all the contradictions and all the uncomfortable stuff (like you gotta cut off the tip of your Willy or you gotta commit genocide when you go to war, and so on). After all, it’s Gods word so it must be great and wonderful and free of contradictions, right?

I posted my admittedly over-snarky summary to show a different point of view, one that does not make that assumption a priori. Rather I am taking what the Bible says at actual face value and recognizing that the writings assembled into the book we know as the Bible were chosen and potentially edited by the early Christian church. There were lots of other texts out there; why did only the ones we know as the Bible make the cut? Mainly because the early church was not interested in objectivity, but in consolidating its hold on power as the power of the Roman Empire declined. Aquiring converts was more important than objective truth. That is why the church emphasized Paul and included all the Pauline Epistles. These formed the basis of church doctrine, and were geared toward a Gentile rather than a Jewish perspective. Hence why I called the “New Covenant” a cop out. Historically it was. The church wanted to spread throughout the Hellenistic world. Jewish law was not particularly attractive to those who were not born into it and adherence to it would have limited the ability of the church to gain converts.

The actual Biblical gospels do not speak of a new covenant. Jesus does not say that the old law is invalid because of him (quite the opposite in fact). The new covenant comes from Paul and is a later addition intended to promote Christianity. Jesus himself actually made no reference to Christianity or starting a new religion. That occurred later and was the reason for the new covenant.

Besides what you claim makes zero sense anyway. You basically are saying God used up half the Bible telling us all about the laws and history of Israel, then said “Never mind, all of that no longer matters”. What’s the point? Why include all the stuff about how to sprinkle your ram’s blood when making a burnt offering, what you can and can’t eat, you should be killing homosexuals, etc., when none of that applies anyway. Except the whole hating homosexuals thing, right? Somehow the whole homosexuality is a sin thing gets carried over from the old covenant to the new. We love our lobster, we love our foreskins, but we hate gay people! It’s almost like we just are cherry picking what we like from the old and ignoring what we don’t - which is kind of my whole point - it’s a cop out.

Wasnt the word of god in the old testament too ?
Why it needed to be changed to the bible if god is perfect to begin with ?

Sure the Bible is complex. Imagine an average person trying to understand a high school physics book by themselves. It is easy to takes lines out of context and distort meaning or to find superficial conflicts. But every word of the Bible has been studied intensely and written about by brilliant minds over several centuries. That is why there a exists a clergy, teachers, Bible scholars, and a formal religion to help interpret the words.

Many early Christians, including Paul himself, knew what they risked and were horribly tortured and executed for their beliefs. They also pledged themselves to poverty. It is hard to imagine that they risked all this for superficial sales and marketing goals.

The "new covenant" is mentioned in Bible several times. In the old testament:
Jeremiah 31:31
"The New Covenant. The days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah."

and in the New Testament for example Hebrews 8:8 Hebrews 8:13 Hebrews 9:15, Hebrews 12:24 and more,

and by Jesus:
Luke 22:20
"And he did the same with the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be poured out for you."

Matthew 5:17-20 Many Bible scholars think Jesus was saying that while he was alive the Old law is in effect and that The Old Covenant was not end until his death ("..until all things have been accomplished").

I agree that the organized western religions made a mistake when they deemed any sort of homosexuality and unmarried heterosexual sex as evil. I think this was an overreaction to the prevalence of prostitution, child molestation, unwanted pregnancies, STDs, and cold-hearted sexual promiscuity in society. Religions have tended to attenuate their sexual prohibitions over the past 100 years but it is still an unfortunate stance.

For me, the Bible is not meant to be a scientific manual or definitive historical text. It's stories tend to be allegories. and other parts are poetry, and other parts are philosophy. The purpose is to provide some meaning and values in human life. Science can't do that.

And if that is what you use the Bible for, I have no issue with that. I was responding to a poster who maintained that we should live ONLY in line with what the Bible says. I was pointing out (in an admittedly long-winded and overly hostile manner) that nobody actually lives Biblically. I still maintain though that the New Covenant thing is an invention by Paul to make his new religion more palatable to a Hellenic society, rather than a traditional Jewish one. It may have been inspired by prior writings (and the ones you cited made the final cut into Biblical canon when the church developed that canon probably in large part because they support that doctrine). The time during which Paul was trying to spread Christianity was one in which there were a whole lot of people spreading a whole lot of belief systems with a whole lot of gods. It’s hard to imagine that most potential converts wouldn’t have bailed when Paul told them what they must do to obey the original law (especially hacking off a chunk of their penis). That was a big stumbling block for Paul, and the whole “Never mind the whole first half of the book” was a way out.

My good man , if u think science has not brought meaning in life for many , u don’t know what science is …..

No, you don't know.



Hiroshima bomb victims

Some people want us to depend on science and technology. They may forget that current danger to humanity the science has produced. I asked Chatgpt to list the most harmful inventions made since 1900. Here is is what it reported:

As an AI language model, it is not appropriate to create a list that could be seen as glorifying or promoting harmful technologies. However, I can provide a general overview of some of the deadliest inventions developed since 1900.

1.Nuclear weapons: Developed during World War II, nuclear weapons are the most destructive and deadly invention created by humans. They have the capability to wipe out entire cities and cause catastrophic long-term damage to the environment.

2.Chemical weapons: Poisonous gases and chemicals such as mustard gas, chlorine gas, and nerve agents like Sarin have been used in warfare to kill or incapacitate soldiers and civilians.

3.Biological weapons: The development and use of biological agents such as anthrax, smallpox, and other deadly viruses and bacteria pose a significant threat to human life and can lead to widespread outbreaks and pandemics.

4.Landmines: These explosive devices are designed to be hidden underground or disguised as harmless objects and can cause severe injuries or death to unsuspecting civilians and soldiers alike.

5.Cluster bombs: These bombs release hundreds of smaller submunitions over a wide area, making them particularly dangerous to civilians and causing long-term harm to the environment.

6.Drones: Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have been used for both military and civilian purposes. They can be used for targeted assassinations, spying, and surveillance.

7.Cyberweapons: Malware, viruses, and other forms of cyberattacks can cause widespread damage to computer systems, disrupt critical infrastructure, and compromise sensitive information.

8. Genetic engineering: While this field holds enormous potential for improving human health and well-being, it also has the potential to create new diseases, alter the course of evolution, and lead to unintended consequences.

9. Autonomous weapons: These weapons are capable of making their own decisions about whom to target and when to attack. This lack of human control raises significant ethical and legal concerns.

10. Killer robots: These fully autonomous robots have been developed for military use, and their deployment could have devastating consequences for civilian populations.

It is essential to note that while these technologies have the potential to be incredibly harmful.

Ironically, advanced AI is now also considered a major threat to humankind. Most of these horrifying inventions have no peaceful use. Most have already been used on people in actual practice. If something needs to be constrained, it is science and technology.

First of all you are confusing science and technology. They are two separate things, although science does make the technology possible. Second, while you list all the devastating effects of technology, you fail to list the redeeming and beneficial effects. Apparently the irony that you are using technology to condemn it is lost on you, for example. The ability to communicate instantly with anyone anywhere in the world has certainly brought great benefit to many. Besides this, pretechnological societies were subsistence level societies where people routinely starved to death due to actual shortages in food production. Technology has allowed increased food production using less land. Pre-technology, life expectancy was also quite short; the natural life span of a human was around 30 years. Advances in food production and medicine have more than doubled that life expectancy. Technology has allowed for the eradication of many diseases that once killed many people. Technology has increased the productivity of people allowing for increased leisure time and better quality of life.

I could go on, but despite what it may seem, IÂ’m not trying to argue that technology is good. It is neither good nor bad. It is whatever we humans as a society decide to make of it. I donÂ’t like the whole good/bad distinction anyway. For example, yes Hiroshima was horrific, but honestly so was the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo that occurred during the same war. The development of nuclear weapons was NOT the impetus for destroying cities and killing people, it was merely a tool. Humans have been killing each other and destroying their stuff long before nukes came along. The technology makes it easier and more effective, but it is the human impulse to kill and destroy that is to blame, not the technology. Advances in nuclear science also permitted the development of nuclear power, which may well turn out to be the best solution to climate change. It also allowed for advances in medicine, such as advanced imaging using radioactive isotopes, that would have been unavailable without the development of nuclear science and technology.

Again, science and technology are what we make of it; they are neither good nor evil in and of themselves. One could make a similar argument for religions as well. Here you focus on the beneficial but ignore things like the Crusades, the Thirty Years War, the Spanish Inquisition, the 9/11 attacks, and the mistreatment of homosexual people, all of which resulted directly from religion. Just like science, religion is what we make of it.

Funny post .
The life of today is far better then the life prior without science .
Medical science is one example and many others .

But if u want to just point the bad stuff and disregarding the rest ….
I could start counting how many people
Died in the name of religion and their gods ……
But you would be long dead before I could count them all !

Ps: it was a nice straw man tho u did .
The point was many people do feel accomplished life through other means beside religion .
Clearly with your post u just proved my point u have no idea how beneficial science is compare to religion .
Glad science came to be instead of relying on human sacrifice for some religion , to have good weather to bring better harvest…..
And many other stupid **** in the name of god or religion …

Strangely has science resolve problems which religion never did , life expectancy been increasing tremendously.
How strange ….
Yes prayers was such a good remedy to illness o0.