Quote:That's true to some degree, because there are scientists who are also religious. However, I find fault with that conclusion. Religion is based on faith and faith only. Science is based on evidence. Nobody can produce any evidence of any god. The Bible itself is full of errors, omissions, and contradictions. 10 commandments: "thou shalt not kill." the Bible and violence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_violence Also, https://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/atrocity.html. I saw too many contradictions in the teachings for it to be anything close to any word of any god. Besides that, religion is an accident of birth. A person's religion usually follows the religion of their country, culture, and parent. A christian is no more devoted to his/her religion than any other religion on this planet. My only fascination with religion is the architecture built in its name. https://hiconsumption.com/2014/09/the-23-most-amazing-temples-in-the-world/ I have visited most of these temples....but believing science has nothing to do with disbelieving religion.
Who are those two morons?
Wrong. I attended perochial school in grade school, and studied the Bible. Also studied Philosophy in college.
That doesn't mean you necessarily understood any of it (correctly).
Quote:Well, I got mostly A's in my Philosophy courses. AAMOF, better than my major in Accounting, although I got a A in Accounting 101. I worked in management for over 80% of my working career. Was Audit Manager at Florsheim Shoe Company, and did small business consulting in Silicon Valley.That doesn't mean you necessarily understood any of it (correctly).
How many academic books have you read?Quote:That's one of the most ignorant questions I've seen on able2know. I still read on the puter, and always have a book or two on my bedstand. Always buy the Sunday San Jose Mercury News before we go for breakfast at a local restaurant.
Because I was able to design bookkeeping systems for businesses, and converted many to computerized system from manual. I designed it myself on my own computer to produce all the necessary bookkeeping records that included the Income Statement and Balance Sheet. It was integrated with all the necessary macro system to keep track of sales, accounts receivables, accounts payables, assets, depreciation, liabilities, and equity. Made good money; traveled to 88 countries and retired early. Paid off our mortgage when I retired, and now have enough savings to live comfortably for the rest of our lives in Silicon Valley, one of the high cost of living area of the country. Our $52k home is now worth $1.8 million.
How many academic books have you read?Quote:That's one of the most ignorant questions I've seen on able2know. I still read on the puter, and always have a book or two on my bedstand. Always buy the Sunday San Jose Mercury News before we go for breakfast at a local restaurant.
I wasn't asking as some kind of measure of your personal worth.
I was asking because if you've read many academic books, you should notice a pattern of information-processing without necessarily understanding all the information being processed.
People can talk and write a lot without really understanding what they are talking/writing about. Often they do so to prove their worth as an academic precisely because they actually don't have a real, deep understanding of the subject matter they study.
This can be a very touchy subject because people depend on others believing they're truly intelligent and wise to maintain academic/intellectual status, so it would be very rude to expose someone's ignorance and they certainly would avoid admitting it themselves.
You asked if I understood anything I read: A stupid q I answered.
Take for example the story of Job. Some critic will ask what kind of God would allow Job to suffer at Satan's hands because Satan tempted/challenged him by causing God to doubt whether Job would actually remain faithful or curse God for his suffering.
Of course the human mind can spin things in this direction or that, so when you choose an interpretation that spins the meaning of a story wrong, you've already doomed yourself to rejecting the story because you've chosen the wrong meaning to review.
If you choose the right meaning, you see that Job's story is an example of people who only have faith and remain obedient because they are materially blessed, and if they suffer materially, they curse and hate God.
13 One day when Job’s sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother’s house, 14 a messenger came to Job and said, “The oxen were plowing and the donkeys were grazing nearby, 15 and the Sabeans attacked and made off with them. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”
16 While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, “The fire of God fell from the heavens and burned up the sheep and the servants, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”
17 While he was still speaking, another messenger came and said, “The Chaldeans formed three raiding parties and swept down on your camels and made off with them. They put the servants to the sword, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”
18 While he was still speaking, yet another messenger came and said, “Your sons and daughters were feasting and drinking wine at the oldest brother’s house, 19 when suddenly a mighty wind swept in from the desert and struck the four corners of the house. It collapsed on them and they are dead, and I am the only one who has escaped to tell you!”
Perhaps the critics see the death of people and animals, and perhaps the supporters treat those people only as material possessions?
Perhaps the critics see a cosmic power play where people and animals die so celestials can see who wins a bet / one up each other / show the other who's correct, while supporters only look at how the central man reacted? Is not part of that story the implied fact that God allowed Satan to kill anyone/everyone but Job? To show Satan that he (Satan) was wrong?
If the story of Job were only about Job, and just about material losses, as you claim....then, if he chose to still continue to support God, good for him. However, the story of Job is not just about Job, and not just about material losses. Many people lost their lives in that story.
Children are property
Both interpretations are possible, but only one 1) is beneficial and 2) honors the purpose of Holy Spirit in transmitting the meaning of the story.
Bad things happen. It is the nature of this world.
Quote:Alright, we've established that you view children as property (seeing as you talk about them being property until 18, at which stage they become adults, so all children are property to you).Children are property
Other than that being a disgusting view, your statements are still perfect examples of people seeing only what they want to see - You talk only about material loss...I point out multiple people dying...you then choose to focus only on children, ignoring the adults who died. Yes, a perfect of example of seeking to see only what you want to see.
Quote:Both interpretations are possible, but only one 1) is beneficial and 2) honors the purpose of Holy Spirit in transmitting the meaning of the story.
Let's move this story into the earthly realm.
A Police Commissioner has a disagreement with his evil son. The Police Commissioner and his son argue that the City Mayor will turn on the Police Commissioner if enough bad happens to the Mayor. The Police Commissioner bets his evil son that he is wrong, and says 'do what you like to the Mayor, just don't touch the Mayor'. The evil son then kills public servants, burns the mayors house to the ground, kills the mayors wife and children, kills the mayors gardener and house cleaner, and so on...all while the Police Commissioner stands by watching it. At the end the Mayor goes to the Police Commissioner and says...I still trust you. You are a good person.
It is irrefutable that the Police Commissioner is not good. Both the Police Commissioner, and the evil son, engaged in evil. Having applied irrefutable ethics here on earth, I can also apply that to anyone in the heavens.
See, the thing is, I apply exactly the same principles of right and wrong to God, as I do to other people (ie. there are no double standards). You on the other hand, constantly twist yourself into knots, trying to explain evil, trying to explain double standards, because you constantly engage in them.
I would say that it is very highly beneficial to not see only what you want to see, and to not engage in double standards.
Quote:You are otherwise treating people as property (and it appears you are), or backing down on your claim that the story of Job was about material loss.Bad things happen. It is the nature of this world.
I deal very well with the fact that bad things happen in this world. I don't care for people who think of other people as mere property, or that lives can to be lost without a thought, and treated as irrelevant except as relates to important/central people. Same goes for making bets where people lose their lives, just to prove a point. Nor do I think such callous ideology should not be challenged.
Not surprisingly, virtually all callous ideology is founded in double standards.
Lol. I wasn't describing my personal view.
You're way off track in understanding what I've said and being able to study religion to understand what it really means.
You only use your mind to argue against God and religion
Quote:This is not what you were doing. You stated Job suffered material loss. I pointed out the deaths.Lol. I wasn't describing my personal view.
You said children were property (whether you were using other peoples words or not). In other words, you used 'other peoples words' to justify you categorising children as property. Ie. So you were treating them as property.
Once pointed out what you were doing, then you backed down, trying to blame others for your statements that children were property...without ever saying 'I don't think children are property'. So you can justify your disgusting statements all you like, or come out and say 'children are not property'...which you still have not done.
If you would like to say 'I don't believe children to be property' then we can have a conversation about my original observation about your statement 'Job suffered material losses'. And if you would like to have an honest conversation over that, then please stop engaging in diversionary nonsense (see the flow of your tactics above).
- I judge everyone, God and Human, using the same principles. You don't.
It's why you tie yourself into knots trying to justify evil behaviour. In your mind, because a 'thing' (more intelligent than a human) is not human, you can ignore it's behaviour, and the outcomes on humans of that behaviour. In my mind, God made this world, and therefor the principles that exist in it, as relates to behaviour. And if he encompasses everything, then he has to be consistent with those principles that relate to behaviour. In other words, it is entirely right, and fair, to judge God by the principles we find in this world.
Quote:I like the idea of God, and hope one exists. And not one thing I've said here argues against the existence of God.You only use your mind to argue against God and religion
Religion on the other hand, falls under the umbrella of ideology, no matter how you look at it. All ideology is open to judgement, using conscience to determine if it is good or bad, beneficial or harmful, consistent or inconsistent, tolerant or intolerant, etc. All people are responsible for their personal beliefs (whether obtained from a religion or elsewhere).
I have been pointing out the flaws in your ideology.
Unfortunately, you don't truly question. Your idea of questioning is 'My end point is X...how do I get from this problem to X?"
Death is a material loss of the body. The soul and spirit live on eternally.
Children are property by law. They are emancipated by default at age 18
Look at how you accuse and try to push me into a defensive stance. It's not right.
You type a lot to generate interpersonal emotional drama. It's unpleasant exchanging posts with you for this reason.
That is an empty rhetorical principle that amounts to nothing relevant.
I don't know how to get through to you that these legalistic-type arguments you make regarding theology are meaningless.
The universe and nature exist. What you imagine God to be may not.
I have questioned a lot, and that has led me to many of my current conclusions and understandings. I am not against further questioning, but some questioning is just irrelevant and a waste of time and effort.
Quote:You aren't engaging in contextual honesty. In context, material loss you spoke of is property loss. You acknowledged this when you went on with the nonsense about children being property.Death is a material loss of the body. The soul and spirit live on eternally.
Quote:Still haven't said 'I don't believe children are property', and gone to great lengths to paint people as property. So yes, you did mean children were property.Children are property by law. They are emancipated by default at age 18
Unclear criticism is unhelpful. Broad criticism is unhelpful. Specific criticism is more helpful...but all criticising without explanation is not constructive...so a lot of typing is needed. Examples add to that. Perhaps you put a slant on motivation so that you can excuse yourself from considering the explanation?
As for discomfort - I wouldn't expect any such questions from me to be comfortable for you. That is what all people feel when deeply held beliefs get questioned with legitimate questions or observations (whether you consciously acknowledge it or not, the discomfort is caused by the acknowledgement of the subconscious)
That is an empty rhetorical principle that amounts to nothing relevant.
I understand why you won't acknowledge this - it would change your understanding of God.
Using your arguments? If you engaged in honesty, it would help. If you didn't avoid situations it would help. If you engaged in consistency it would help. Etc. When confronted on flawed beliefs, you don't.
Fine by me - I don't claim to know for sure. I simply do the best I can. Will you apply your statement to your beliefs regarding God as well....or once again employ double standards.
Your understanding of my words doesn't accurately reflect my intent or how I think. That may be because of how you read, how I write, or some combination. Either way, I am clarifying now that there was miscommunication, so stop bickering about it.
Feminism has criticized the notion that marital partners are each other's 'property,' yet that is exactly what marriage as an institution does, i.e. make people who are not blood relatives 'proper' family to each other
Idk. All I know is that it is difficult to communicate clearly with you. Maybe there are other people than me that can communicate with you more clearly. Idk.
