19 Sep 13
Originally posted by Rank outsider'Would it be within the realm of conceivable reality that Christians believe in God because they were abused by their parents when they were young, thus creating a complex desire for an authoritarian/love/abuse relationship.'
To give you an idea of googlefudge's point, would you have been as indifferent if I had posted:
'Would it be within the realm of conceivable reality that Christians believe in God because they were abused by their parents when they were young, thus creating a complex desire for an authoritarian/love/abuse relationship.'
An opposite reaction would seem more plausible. Being abused verbally and/or emotionally, physically and/or sexually by an (mother, father, older sibling, teacher, coach, neighbor, uncle or grandfather) authority figure would deeply scar the psyche; inculcation of submissive behavior would likely result in inordinate compensatory Macho or Feminist behavior; sexual identity confusion; and a desire to eradicate their former self. Being in Charge could at least temporarily motivate rejection of God.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe second time you've now brought up doubting thomas eventhough I tried to explain to you why that term is not appropriate for atheists and you appeared to understand it that time.
"It's a consequence of being more skeptic than "believers."
In the same league as the Doubting Thomas Skeptic who may eventually become a "believer"?
So let's take a moment to clarify this: do you understand and agree that atheists aren't doubtful about god?
Originally posted by Great King Rat"a·the·ist noun
The second time you've now brought up doubting thomas eventhough I tried to explain to you why that term is not appropriate for atheists and you appeared to understand it that time.
So let's take a moment to clarify this: do you understand and agree that atheists aren't doubtful about god?
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
1. a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
"he is a committed atheist"
synonyms: nonbeliever, disbeliever, unbeliever, skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, agnostic; More
nihilist
"why is it often assumed that a man of science is probably an atheist?"
antonyms: believer" (atheist/google)
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn terms of him losing his mind, I always pictured himself huddled up in a dark corner convincing himself that God did not exist nor did he really exist for that matter. 😛
he did, he grew a huge moustache and couldn't get a chick because of it.
In terms of the large moustache, that's a dead give away that you enjoy Judy Garland albums.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNo need to torture him further. By the time we are done with him he will start acting as if he had syphilis. 😛
ANOTHER EPIC FAIL, Whodeys point was not that Christians have not contracted syphilis, his actual point was, that is the point he actually made was that had ol Nietzsche applied Biblical principles it would have spared him contracting syphilis in the first instance, but hey we know how hard it is for you to acknowledge the Bibles superlative practical wisdom. You and ol Nietzsche deserve each other, dateless dudes if ever there were two 😵
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you accept that Mosaic law imposed requirements on its followers that were deficient, non-sensical and undesirable?
so was having your foreskin lopped off with a flint knife, you want to go back to that, fine!
Odd that your God would do that. It sounds like the kind of thing man would do.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderSigh, it was for a particular epoch and for a particular people, for a particular purpose and no i do not accept any of your premise. Is not odd at all when one understands its purpose.
So you accept that Mosaic law imposed requirements on its followers that were deficient, non-sensical and undesirable?
Odd that your God would do that. It sounds like the kind of thing man would do.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRegardless of whether it was a for a particular epoch for a particular people and purpose, do you accept it was deficient, undesirable and nonsensical?
Sigh, it was for a particular epoch and for a particular people, for a particular purpose and no i do not accept any of your premise. Is not odd at all when one understands its purpose.
Originally posted by Proper KnobAre you in your own mind? The Bible states that the Law was perfect! and I remind you it is set within a context, to take it out if that context is unreasonable.
Regardless of whether it was a for a particular epoch for a particular people and purpose, do you accept it was deficient, undesirable and nonsensical?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYour use of particular reminded me of this Tim Minchin classic on the subject of miracles as evidence for God's existence.
particular epoch and for a particular people, for a particular purpose
Warning : don't watch this if you are remotely likely to be offended at someone having a pop at religion.
(Then again, if you are, what the hell are you doing on the Spirituality Forum?)
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI couldn't give a hoot whether the Bible states the Law is perfect. Explain to me how lopping of a child's foreskin 3000 years ago was 'desirable'.
Are you in your own mind? The Bible states that the Law was perfect! and I remind you it is set within a context, to take it out if that context is unreasonable.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieA first year medical student could have developed better rules for the identification and treatment of 'leprous like' conditions than are present in the Bible and which could have been used in Mosaic times.
Are you in your own mind? The Bible states that the Law was perfect! and I remind you it is set within a context, to take it out if that context is unreasonable.
I just wonder why God, with his infinite knowledge, chose to set his advice in terms which are so patently deficient and look so obviously like something human beings would have come up with.
Like the idea that physical imperfection is linked to spiritual imperfection.
As this concept is not a law, I wonder if you would subscribe to this piece of Biblical practical wisdom as well?