independent and unofficial
Prince fan community
Forum jump
Forums > Politics & Religion > My One And Only Thread On Religion
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Page 4 of 7 <1234567>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
Reply #90 posted 09/17/19 11:24am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

jaawwnn said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Come on now

If you're going to argue massive galaxy-sized generalities like "Actually nuclear families and ethnic cultures are assumed to be good" then I see no issue with putting a tiny bit of pressure on your argument.

LOL

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
https://prince.org/msg/7/463568
https://prince.org/msg/8/463899?&pg=1
https://www.youtube.com/w...M0JN5IAD50
#IDEFINEME
What's the matter with your life
Is poverty bringing U down?
Is the mailman jerking U 'round?
Did he pu
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #91 posted 09/17/19 11:49am

jjhunsecker

avatar

OldFriends4Sale said:



jjhunsecker said:


OldFriends4Sale said:



Nuclear families and Ethnic cultures and race groups do the same things. What we see happen in larger religious organizations, political realms, places of learning, racial social political groups are usually a reflection of things that originated in families.


.


You've said this stuff before, you should explain further what you mean in post 65. Read Toejams pst #74



But nuclear families and ethnic cultures aren't assumed to be "good " and "moral " because they are associated with "God" and "The Bible " like organized religion is . Elsewise, I pretty much stated what I think and believe in my earlier posts



Actually nuclear families and ethnic cultures are assumed to be good. No one assumes they are bad things, or there would be none.
What happens out in the world, does start 'at home'
Religions come out of ethnic cultures.



I don't know if EVERY "ethnic culture " is assumed to be "good "... but that's a different conversation than the one that is going on in this thread.

But I do somewhat agree about the home: I always said about these degenerate clergymen, they are not pedophiles because they are priests, instead they are priests BECAUSE they are pedophiles. Of course it was the responsibility of the hierarchy of the clergy to deal with these perverts appropriately, and in many cases they completely failed their civic duty.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #92 posted 09/17/19 12:50pm

onlyforaminute

jaawwnn said:



onlyforaminute said:


A husband a wife and kids was only invented in the 20th century? Ok.

I should clarify for the pedants: the assumption that the nuclear family is the norm for the majority of (a) society was invented in the 20th century. The term, rather than the concept, itself was also invented in the 20th century. From this I would argue that the nuclear family is a 20th century invention.



[Edited 9/17/19 10:54am]


In western culture a wife a husband and kids has been the ideal goi g back to even the greeks. Were there other arrangements going on? Of course. There still are even in the us but the ideal was a husband a wife and kids. Can you really point to any western monarchy that was living differently over the past few hundred years? Don't confuse a fact as some kind of moral argument on my part, not my point.. But cmon even the homer illiads are about these ideal couplings even got a war being fought because a man stole a wife. The Odyssey? A wife holding out for her husband a husband going through crap to get home to his family? The gods themselves didn't have 5 wives even though they slept around like crazy, it always lead to bad things. There was a standard set that we still uphold today as being the bar to shoot for.
If you carry the egg basket do not dance.

Do good, then throw it into the sea.

#octavia tried to tell us
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #93 posted 09/17/19 4:02pm

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

jjhunsecker said:

OldFriends4Sale said:

Actually nuclear families and ethnic cultures are assumed to be good. No one assumes they are bad things, or there would be none.
What happens out in the world, does start 'at home'
Religions come out of ethnic cultures.

I don't know if EVERY "ethnic culture " is assumed to be "good "... but that's a different conversation than the one that is going on in this thread. But I do somewhat agree about the home: I always said about these degenerate clergymen, they are not pedophiles because they are priests, instead they are priests BECAUSE they are pedophiles. Of course it was the responsibility of the hierarchy of the clergy to deal with these perverts appropriately, and in many cases they completely failed their civic duty.

Well overall we do, think culture in in of itself is good. The bad is when other stuff pushes out the evil in mankind. Hippie culture was good, but Charles Manson created a subculture of that and did some extremely evil things.

The church culture of colored people made access to education, leadership and Civil Rights advances.

Pedophiles or child molesters tend to be the result of someone else doing that to them, a lot of times(and people don't like admitting it) this stuff happens in the family first. And yes mothers/sisters/cousins/aunts/grandmothers do this stuff too. Whitney Houston was sexually molested by a family member-not inthe church, but in the music industry.

.

My friend William was sexually molested by his paternal grandmother. She was not a religious woman either.

.

Musical subcultures can and usually have a 'theology' about them, certain expectations, beliefs about sexuality, gender etc Just last week in a rap contest and 30yr old female rapper beat 3-5 male rappers younger. They raped her in anger to put her in her place. No doubt an avenue of that culture influenced them.

.

We don't look at music subcultures as bad. We intitially believe they are good things, and they are.

If we thought marriage of any kind was bad, we wouldn't do it. No one is forced to get married(overall) in most countries and cultures. And for many men, women and children marriage can turn into nightmare.
.
But ANYTHING humans are involved in can yield/create strains of some evil shit, because people(all of us) have the capacity for it.

#ALBUMSSTILLMATTER
https://prince.org/msg/7/463568
https://prince.org/msg/8/463899?&pg=1
https://www.youtube.com/w...M0JN5IAD50
#IDEFINEME
What's the matter with your life
Is poverty bringing U down?
Is the mailman jerking U 'round?
Did he pu
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #94 posted 09/17/19 7:02pm

onlyforaminute

nu·cle·ar fam·i·ly
noun
a couple and their dependent children, regarded as a basic social unit.


Marriage in ancient Rome (conubium) was a strictly monogamous institution: a Roman citizen by law could have only one spouse at a time. The practice of monogamy distinguished the Greeks and Romans from other ancient civilizations, in which elite males typically had multiple wives. Greco-Roman monogamy may have arisen from the egalitarianism of the democratic and republican political systems of the city-states. It is one aspect of ancient Roman culture that was embraced by early Christianity, which in turn perpetuated it as an ideal in later Western culture.[2]

The word matrimonium, the root for the English word "matrimony", defines the institution's main function. Involving the mater (mother), it carries with it the implication of the man taking a woman in marriage to have children. It is the idea conventionally shared by Romans as to the purpose of marriage, which would be to produce legitimate children; citizens producing new citizens.[3]

The exact same idea just different wording. Its been going on for a very long time.
If you carry the egg basket do not dance.

Do good, then throw it into the sea.

#octavia tried to tell us
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #95 posted 09/18/19 1:06pm

jaawwnn

avatar

onlyforaminute said:

jaawwnn said:



onlyforaminute said:


A husband a wife and kids was only invented in the 20th century? Ok.

I should clarify for the pedants: the assumption that the nuclear family is the norm for the majority of (a) society was invented in the 20th century. The term, rather than the concept, itself was also invented in the 20th century. From this I would argue that the nuclear family is a 20th century invention.



[Edited 9/17/19 10:54am]


In western culture a wife a husband and kids has been the ideal goi g back to even the greeks. Were there other arrangements going on? Of course. There still are even in the us but the ideal was a husband a wife and kids. Can you really point to any western monarchy that was living differently over the past few hundred years? Don't confuse a fact as some kind of moral argument on my part, not my point.. But cmon even the homer illiads are about these ideal couplings even got a war being fought because a man stole a wife. The Odyssey? A wife holding out for her husband a husband going through crap to get home to his family? The gods themselves didn't have 5 wives even though they slept around like crazy, it always lead to bad things. There was a standard set that we still uphold today as being the bar to shoot for.

In the Odyssey, Odysseus sleeping around is not a problem, only when there's a chance that Penelope might do the same does it become an issue. In the Iliad women are mostly possessions, Helen is the most beautiful possession that is stolen. These are very different cultures to now. Same with royalty, that was about bloodlines, not about the nuclear family and it wasnt aspirational, it was exclusive - the vast, vast majority of the people were not living in nuclear families, they were grouped together in tenements and slums and farms and slaves etc, and this was seen as their rightful place, (depending on your century and your location of course). Yes marriage existed, and so did prohibitions about sex outside marriage but that is not alone the definition of the nuclear family. The nuclear family as the rightful norm for the majority of a society is a 20th century invention that we project onto our understanding of the past.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #96 posted 09/18/19 2:19pm

IanRG

But what about Buddhism?

.

In addition to the rejection of the term "atheist" by tolerent non-believers in the Australian Census before the last one (where, as survey of the whole population, all but a few percentage points of those who did not state a belief in a religion ticked a box other than atheist), there is the problem of Buddhism.

.

In everyway Buddhism is a religion. It is an organised religion that promotes ethics and morality and help for others and to improve yourself whilst its organisations often fall short of their ideals. It believes in high plains of existence, spirits and demons, heavens and hells and has metaphysical beliefs as well as beliefs that appear illogical or unscientific to those who don't follow or understand this religion. It has demonstrated why it is necessary to separate "church" and "state" just as convincingly as all other religions. But it does not have a god or gods at its head. It can, and has been argued by some that it is, therefore, atheist.

.

In determining the correct nomenclature for people and beliefs within the wide spectrum of beliefs about religions, the key differentiating factor with the term "atheist" is not its strict dictionary definition. It is whether the "a" at the beginning refers to merely "an absense of" or an "anti-position". Many Buddhism are not anti other religions that are with or without a theistic creator at their head the way we see "atheists" are. They embrace the differences and see them as valid (albeit wrong) ways in a person's journey to their ultimate goal.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #97 posted 09/18/19 2:52pm

onlyforaminute

jaawwnn said:

onlyforaminute said:


In western culture a wife a husband and kids has been the ideal goi g back to even the greeks. Were there other arrangements going on? Of course. There still are even in the us but the ideal was a husband a wife and kids. Can you really point to any western monarchy that was living differently over the past few hundred years? Don't confuse a fact as some kind of moral argument on my part, not my point.. But cmon even the homer illiads are about these ideal couplings even got a war being fought because a man stole a wife. The Odyssey? A wife holding out for her husband a husband going through crap to get home to his family? The gods themselves didn't have 5 wives even though they slept around like crazy, it always lead to bad things. There was a standard set that we still uphold today as being the bar to shoot for.

In the Odyssey, Odysseus sleeping around is not a problem, only when there's a chance that Penelope might do the same does it become an issue. In the Iliad women are mostly possessions, Helen is the most beautiful possession that is stolen. These are very different cultures to now. Same with royalty, that was about bloodlines, not about the nuclear family and it wasnt aspirational, it was exclusive - the vast, vast majority of the people were not living in nuclear families, they were grouped together in tenements and slums and farms and slaves etc, and this was seen as their rightful place, (depending on your century and your location of course). Yes marriage existed, and so did prohibitions about sex outside marriage but that is not alone the definition of the nuclear family. The nuclear family as the rightful norm for the majority of a society is a 20th century invention that we project onto our understanding of the past.

The original comment was the "ideal " arrangement being considered good. Im pointing out that literature and among the elite is normally where you find what is considered ideal and good very rarely is the world of peasents and slave held up as the way to be even today. And in that literature you'll find the foundation of the exact same ideals we've built our world today, the word was coined in the 20th century but the structure came from the ancient world. Sure it was way more misogynist but aren't those the issues we are battling in this 21st environment the remaining concepts of female ownership. Ive already given the definition nuclear family and how it was modeled after the ancient Greek/Roman ideology. You can always read further on ancient Roman marriage law, it wasn't quite how you've just painted it.
If you carry the egg basket do not dance.

Do good, then throw it into the sea.

#octavia tried to tell us
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #98 posted 09/18/19 4:14pm

poppys

IanRG said:

But what about Buddhism?

.

In addition to the rejection of the term "atheist" by tolerent non-believers in the Australian Census before the last one (where, as survey of the whole population, all but a few percentage points of those who did not state a belief in a religion ticked a box other than atheist), there is the problem of Buddhism.

.

In everyway Buddhism is a religion. It is an organised religion that promotes ethics and morality and help for others and to improve yourself whilst its organisations often fall short of their ideals. It believes in high plains of existence, spirits and demons, heavens and hells and has metaphysical beliefs as well as beliefs that appear illogical or unscientific to those who don't follow or understand this religion. It has demonstrated why it is necessary to separate "church" and "state" just as convincingly as all other religions. But it does not have a god or gods at its head. It can, and has been argued by some that it is, therefore, atheist.

.

In determining the correct nomenclature for people and beliefs within the wide spectrum of beliefs about religions, the key differentiating factor with the term "atheist" is not its strict dictionary definition. It is whether the "a" at the beginning refers to merely "an absense of" or an "anti-position". Many Buddhism are not anti other religions that are with or without a theistic creator at their head the way we see "atheists" are. They embrace the differences and see them as valid (albeit wrong) ways in a person's journey to their ultimate goal.


Maybe this is an intellectual dilemma I'm not getting, but isn't Buddha the originator of the 4th largest religion in the world? Even if he is not considered a God, he is still what we would call a prophet. There are probably other ways of saying believers, non-believers and do-not-knows in other languages other than English.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #99 posted 09/18/19 7:45pm

IanRG

poppys said:

IanRG said:

But what about Buddhism?

.

In addition to the rejection of the term "atheist" by tolerent non-believers in the Australian Census before the last one (where, as survey of the whole population, all but a few percentage points of those who did not state a belief in a religion ticked a box other than atheist), there is the problem of Buddhism.

.

In everyway Buddhism is a religion. It is an organised religion that promotes ethics and morality and help for others and to improve yourself whilst its organisations often fall short of their ideals. It believes in high plains of existence, spirits and demons, heavens and hells and has metaphysical beliefs as well as beliefs that appear illogical or unscientific to those who don't follow or understand this religion. It has demonstrated why it is necessary to separate "church" and "state" just as convincingly as all other religions. But it does not have a god or gods at its head. It can, and has been argued by some that it is, therefore, atheist.

.

In determining the correct nomenclature for people and beliefs within the wide spectrum of beliefs about religions, the key differentiating factor with the term "atheist" is not its strict dictionary definition. It is whether the "a" at the beginning refers to merely "an absense of" or an "anti-position". Many Buddhism are not anti other religions that are with or without a theistic creator at their head the way we see "atheists" are. They embrace the differences and see them as valid (albeit wrong) ways in a person's journey to their ultimate goal.


Maybe this is an intellectual dilemma I'm not getting, but isn't Buddha the originator of the 4th largest religion in the world? Even if he is not considered a God, he is still what we would call a prophet. There are probably other ways of saying believers, non-believers and do-not-knows in other languages other than English.

.

But the four Buddhas are not prophets for God and a prophet is not God. Moses is not a God, Yahweh is: Muhammad is not God, Allah is. The four Buddhas are humans through which Buddhist teachings developed. The difference between the Buddhas and the Prophets is the Buddhas are not Prophets because they were not providing any teachings or learnings from God.

.

Sure people have different words in their own languages: In Myanmarza the word for atheist is ဘုရားမရှိဟူသောအယူ (hpaya:-ma-shi.-hu.-dho:-ayu.) meaning "a person who does not declare a belief in or conviction to Buddha or a Deity" as Myanmar is primarily a Buddhist country. Note here an atheist includes a person who does not declare a belief in the teachings of Buddha either. This is in contrast to many Buddhist in the West where many see a connection in Buddhism with non-Theistic beliefs instead.

.

This does not answer that in English speaking cultures there is a difference in the denotation of "atheist" and the connotations when you declare yourself an atheist and the too regular connection between the declararion and evanglising this by attacking and mocking people with Theistic beliefs.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #100 posted 09/18/19 7:56pm

onlyforaminute

One of my first head butting encounters on the org was with a Christian Buddhist. That was new to me.
If you carry the egg basket do not dance.

Do good, then throw it into the sea.

#octavia tried to tell us
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #101 posted 09/18/19 8:38pm

poppys

IanRG said:

poppys said:


Maybe this is an intellectual dilemma I'm not getting, but isn't Buddha the originator of the 4th largest religion in the world? Even if he is not considered a God, he is still what we would call a prophet. There are probably other ways of saying believers, non-believers and do-not-knows in other languages other than English.

.

But the four Buddhas are not prophets for God and a prophet is not God. Moses is not a God, Yahweh is: Muhammad is not God, Allah is. The four Buddhas are humans through which Buddhist teachings developed. The difference between the Buddhas and the Prophets is the Buddhas are not Prophets because they were not providing any teachings or learnings from God.

.

Sure people have different words in their own languages: In Myanmarza the word for atheist is ဘုရားမရှိဟူသောအယူ (hpaya:-ma-shi.-hu.-dho:-ayu.) meaning "a person who does not declare a belief in or conviction to Buddha or a Deity" as Myanmar is primarily a Buddhist country. Note here an atheist includes a person who does not declare a belief in the teachings of Buddha either. This is in contrast to many Buddhist in the West where many see a connection in Buddhism with non-Theistic beliefs instead.

.

This does not answer that in English speaking cultures there is a difference in the denotation of "atheist" and the connotations when you declare yourself an atheist and the too regular connection between the declararion and evanglising this by attacking and mocking people with Theistic beliefs.


I don't believe Jesus was literally the son of God. I don't believe there was an Immaculate Conception or a Resurrection. So I'm really out of the Christian realm as far as that. I think Jesus was an extraordinary person and prophet, same with Moses and other people who were enlightened. I do agree with many religious teachings from a moral standpoint.

I don't know what form God would be should it exist. Since I'm not an atheist either, I don't have an opinion on the semantics of what Buhddists are or aren't.

I was never told that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were real. My parents made them special spirits for those holidays, but I always knew they weren't literally on the roof or hiding eggs. Those who use them as some kind of no God gotcha seems kind of silly to me.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #102 posted 09/18/19 9:40pm

IanRG

poppys said:

IanRG said:

.

But the four Buddhas are not prophets for God and a prophet is not God. Moses is not a God, Yahweh is: Muhammad is not God, Allah is. The four Buddhas are humans through which Buddhist teachings developed. The difference between the Buddhas and the Prophets is the Buddhas are not Prophets because they were not providing any teachings or learnings from God.

.

Sure people have different words in their own languages: In Myanmarza the word for atheist is ဘုရားမရှိဟူသောအယူ (hpaya:-ma-shi.-hu.-dho:-ayu.) meaning "a person who does not declare a belief in or conviction to Buddha or a Deity" as Myanmar is primarily a Buddhist country. Note here an atheist includes a person who does not declare a belief in the teachings of Buddha either. This is in contrast to many Buddhist in the West where many see a connection in Buddhism with non-Theistic beliefs instead.

.

This does not answer that in English speaking cultures there is a difference in the denotation of "atheist" and the connotations when you declare yourself an atheist and the too regular connection between the declararion and evanglising this by attacking and mocking people with Theistic beliefs.


I don't believe Jesus was literally the son of God. I don't believe there was an Immaculate Conception or a Resurrection. So I'm really out of the Christian realm as far as that. I think Jesus was an extraordinary person and prophet, same with Moses and other people who were enlightened. I do agree with many religious teachings from a moral standpoint.

I don't know what form God would be should it exist. Since I'm not an atheist either, I don't have an opinion on the semantics of what Buhddists are or aren't.

I was never told that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny were real. My parents made them special spirits for those holidays, but I always knew they weren't literally on the roof or hiding eggs. Those who use them as some kind of no God gotcha seems kind of silly to me.

.

Understood. The point I was making was that the Buddhas are not God or Prophets of God as Buddhism is not a theistic religion. However, it contains all the aspects (good and bad, tangible and intangible, human and metaphysical) of theistic religions especially in how it operates as a religious organisation. You don't need to know or agree with any of the specific understandings of Christianity or Buddhism beliefs.

.

We did not tell our children that Santa or the Easter Bunny were real (much to the chagrin of their grand parents as we asked them not to do this either) - but we did play pretend and talk to toys and all the normal things like this that are so important to children and their development. Those who think adult belief in God is the same as childhood beliefs really don't understand why adults believe in things and they flag themselves by their misunderstandings everytime they seek to raise this as if it is a "gotcha". This lack of understanding of beliefs is about beliefs in anything: favourite brands, teams, politics, social and communal issues and choices, colours and various philosophical, psychological, sociological or religious beliefs.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #103 posted 09/18/19 11:43pm

toejam

avatar

^Did you tell your kids that Jesus-God is real?

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #104 posted 09/19/19 12:02am

IanRG

toejam said:

^Did you tell your kids that Jesus-God is real?

.

No, I taught them nothing about anything I believe to be true because the failure to pass on knowledge is exactly how societies learn, maintain their knowledge, morals and ethics and grow because seeking to not stand on the shoulders of giants so they need to relearn everything from scratch is the most sensible thing I could do. Like every good parent I want the worst for my children by giving them nothing I care about.

.

What a stupid question.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #105 posted 09/19/19 1:19am

toejam

avatar

IanRG said:

What a stupid question.

.

At what age did you start teaching them that Jesus-God was real? And what reasons did you give them? Did you tell them that Jesus-God was real because he had revealed it to you?

.

[Edited 9/19/19 1:23am]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #106 posted 09/19/19 3:08am

IanRG

toejam said:

IanRG said:

.

No, I taught them nothing about anything I believe to be true because the failure to pass on knowledge is exactly how societies learn, maintain their knowledge, morals and ethics and grow because seeking to not stand on the shoulders of giants so they need to relearn everything from scratch is the most sensible thing I could do. Like every good parent I want the worst for my children by giving them nothing I care about.

.

What a stupid question.

.

At what age did you start teaching them that Jesus-God was real? And what reasons did you give them? Did you tell them that Jesus-God was real because he had revealed it to you?

.

[Edited 9/19/19 1:23am]

.

It is child abuse and intellually moribund to seek to encourage people to not teach children about society, morals, ethics and knowledge just because you, as not their parent, not their guardian and in no way morally or intellectually superior, disagree with these morals, ethics or knowledge.

.

I taught them positively about Islam, Buddhism etc. as well because there are people in our family that are Muslim and Buddhist. In this I did my moral duty to warn them about fundamentalism and lack of critical thinking especially by fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist atheists - people who can spend thousands of dollars and thousands of hours to explain away science and other people's beliefs without proof. A key learning I passed on is they often cannot address what you have said them and, instead, they lock on to a single phrase or sentence to push their agenda, forever missing the point of what the other person said to them.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #107 posted 09/19/19 3:46am

toejam

avatar

^You taught them positively about Islam? Care to elaborate? Surely you didn't teach them that Mohummad really did have revelations from an angel and that the Koran really is the inspired word of God, right? But I assume you did teach your children your particular Christian beliefs - that, for example, Jesus really was born of a virgin, that he really did rise from the grave after having been crucified, and that really was God incarnate, etc. Please correct me if my assumption is incorrect.

.

If my assumption is correct, then I'd like to know what age your children were when you started teaching them that Jesus-God was real, that he had been born of a virgin, etc.? And what reasons did you give them?
.

[Edited 9/19/19 3:51am]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #108 posted 09/19/19 3:56am

IanRG

toejam said:

^You taught them positively about Islam? Care to elaborate? Surely you didn't teach them that Mohummad really did have revelations from an angel and that the Koran really is the inspired word of God, right? But I assume you did teach your children your particular Christian beliefs, that, for example, Jesus really was born of a virgin, that he really did rise from the grave after having been crucified, and that really was God incarnate, etc. Please correct me if my assumption is incorrect.

.

If my assumption is correct, then I'd like to know what age your children were when started teaching them that Jesus-God was real? And what reasons did you give them?

.

Yes, I taught them positively about Islam as a demonstably superior belief to fundamentalist atheism and, no, I don't care to elaborate.

.

As ever your assumptions are your assumptions and they bear no relationship to the topic.

.

As to what you would like: Learn to be disappointed as the only reason you always want to take threads off-topic is to push your agenda of justifying your beliefs by mocking the beliefs of others.

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #109 posted 09/19/19 6:15am

poppys

You have to wonder about people who demand specific answers on a public discussion website.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #110 posted 09/19/19 8:07am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

I don't agree with the Muslim beliefs but I support them not being bombed.

Jesus did rise from the dead. I cannot prove it but I believe it. There is an empty tomb. The more important point was that two women first went to the tomb, that was when women were second class.

check out the podcast the Bible for Normal People.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #111 posted 09/19/19 8:08am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

The Greek on Virgin is actually young woman. I think she had sex.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #112 posted 09/19/19 9:08am

onlyforaminute

I hate it when "discussions " turn like this. Even science gets taught to the young when every detail is not known. If you don't think so then you need to explain exactly what dark energy is. Or be a true advocate for not teaching youngsters anything until it can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. What a waste of energy.
If you carry the egg basket do not dance.

Do good, then throw it into the sea.

#octavia tried to tell us
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #113 posted 09/19/19 9:18am

2freaky4church
1

avatar

A lot of mystery.

All you others say Hell Yea!! woot!
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #114 posted 09/19/19 10:25am

onlyforaminute

2freaky4church1 said:

A lot of mystery.


Welcome to quantum physics where sh!t don't work the way you think it should.
If you carry the egg basket do not dance.

Do good, then throw it into the sea.

#octavia tried to tell us
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #115 posted 09/20/19 2:34pm

toejam

avatar

poppys said:

You have to wonder about people who demand specific answers on a public discussion website.

.

Why wonder? If it's a public discussion forum, then ask them directly whatever it is you're wondering about! wink

.

2freaky said:

I don't agree with the Muslim beliefs but I support them not being bombed.


Jesus did rise from the dead. I cannot prove it but I believe it. There is an empty tomb. The more important point was that two women first went to the tomb, that was when women were second class.

.

I support not bombing Muslims either. I'd rather help educate them out of the superstition that is Islam.

.

Nothing about Jesus can be "proven". Sure, it's likely there was a guy - some Jewish apocalyptic preacher who found himself on the wrong side of the Jewish & Roman aristocracy of the time and wound up on a cross, but beyond that it's hard to say much more with any fair degree of confidence. The empty tomb is certainly not a bedrock historical fact. Many historians dispute it, thinking that it's just another example of gospel myth-making, with the historical Jesus' body probably just tossed into a common grave instead like most other crucified seditionists.
.

The Greek on Virgin is actually young woman. I think she had sex.

.

Yep. If a historical Jesus existed, then he was certainly conceived due to his mother engaging in the usual form of sexual intercourse with a human male. Same goes for all the other ancient rulers and cult leaders whose propaganda often attributed fictitious 'miraculous-shenanigans' to stories of their conceptions and/or births. It was just something of a fad at the time. The gospel attributed to Matthew took a questionable Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 and mistakenly thought it to be a prophecy about a virgin conceiving Jesus hundreds of years later, despite that the original Hebrew of Isaiah is not prophecying a virgin conceiving Jesus hundreds of years later, but of events expected to occur within 10-15yrs or so of a young woman's conception in Isaiah's present (8thC BCE). This, among many other examples, speaks to the unreliability of the gospels as historical sources (and as such, should have you at least twitching your eyebrow when it comes to swallowing the empty-tomb narratives as historical fact).

.

onlyforaminute said:
I hate it when "discussions " turn like this. Even science gets taught to the young when every detail is not known. If you don't think so then you need to explain exactly what dark energy is. Or be a true advocate for not teaching youngsters anything until it can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. What a waste of energy.

.
I am not advocating teaching youngsters only things which can be proven. I am not one of those who think we should only believe that which can be proven. It's an untenable scenario. I can't "prove" that I'm not going to be involved in a serious car accident next time I drive. But the evidence is compelling to me that I *almost certainly* won't. It always comes down to where the evidence is pointing - not what can be "proven". I was simply asking Ian at what age he began teaching his children that Jesus-God was real and what reasons he gave them for thinking so. In my many years of conversations with Ian, it's clear to me that he does not have good reasons for beliving in a virgin-conceived, literally-risen, Trinitarian Jesus-God. There are better reasons for thinking that Jesus was just another cult hero with a falsely-attributed 'miraculous-conception' story, who simply stayed dead after his death, and is not the singular God of monotheism, etc. But Ian has said he's not interested in engaging. That's fine. Moving on!

.

[Edited 9/20/19 14:39pm]

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #116 posted 09/20/19 5:00pm

IanRG

toejam said:

poppys said:

You have to wonder about people who demand specific answers on a public discussion website.

.

Why wonder? If it's a public discussion forum, then ask them directly whatever it is you're wondering about! wink

.

.

Yep. If a historical Jesus existed, then he was certainly conceived due to his mother engaging in the usual form of sexual intercourse with a human male. Same goes for all the other ancient rulers and cult leaders whose propaganda often attributed fictitious 'miraculous-shenanigans' to stories of their conceptions and/or births. It was just something of a fad at the time. The gospel attributed to Matthew took a questionable Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 and mistakenly thought it to be a prophecy about a virgin conceiving Jesus hundreds of years later, despite that the original Hebrew of Isaiah is not prophecying a virgin conceiving Jesus hundreds of years later, but of events expected to occur within 10-15yrs or so of a young woman's conception in Isaiah's present (8thC BCE). This, among many other examples, speaks to the unreliability of the gospels as historical sources (and as such, should have you at least twitching your eyebrow when it comes to swallowing the empty-tomb narratives as historical fact).

.

onlyforaminute said:
I hate it when "discussions " turn like this. Even science gets taught to the young when every detail is not known. If you don't think so then you need to explain exactly what dark energy is. Or be a true advocate for not teaching youngsters anything until it can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. What a waste of energy.

.
I am not advocating teaching youngsters only things which can be proven. I am not one of those who think we should only believe that which can be proven. It's an untenable scenario. I can't "prove" that I'm not going to be involved in a serious car accident next time I drive. But the evidence is compelling to me that I *almost certainly* won't. It always comes down to where the evidence is pointing - not what can be "proven". I was simply asking Ian at what age he began teaching his children that Jesus-God was real and what reasons he gave them for thinking so. In my many years of conversations with Ian, it's clear to me that he does not have good reasons for beliving in a virgin-conceived, literally-risen, Trinitarian Jesus-God. There are better reasons for thinking that Jesus was just another cult hero with a falsely-attributed 'miraculous-conception' story, who simply stayed dead after his death, and is not the singular God of monotheism, etc. But Ian has said he's not interested in engaging. That's fine. Moving on!

.

[Edited 9/20/19 14:39pm]

.

The reason I am not interested in engaging is, after 1,000s of hours and 1,000s of dollars in you seeking the ever elusive gotcha argument, you have never found one and you make the same mistakes you have been making since we first engaged long before you created your facebook list of appeals to authority fallacies.

.

Your arguments have been lacking good reason for people to accept, but, more than that: They have never addressed what people believe or why people believe.

.

In regards to this thread and the one it followed, the key thing about why there is no point engaging with you is you are always only ever doing this because you are seeking to evanglise your beliefs without proof, just as you demonstrate above. Outside of the JW at the door and the mega church TV channel, it is not the religious pushing their faith at others all the time. When a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Christian, a Jew, an Indigenous Australian on the Dreamtime, etc. etc. etc. get together, we can learn about what the others believe and why. But when there is a fundamentalist in the room, the exchange of knowledge falls on its face, especially when that fundamentalist is solely focused on re-educating those inferior them out of their beliefs. For all your effort, it is has only ever been intellectually moribund: It has only been about finding ways to convince others they are wrong, never what you believe is right. The question you need to ask yourself is why do you spend so much of your time on seeking to re-educate others out of their beliefs in this and other forums round the world?

.

If Jesus is God, then all of your oft repeated assertions fall off to ground like dust on your shoe.

[Edited 9/20/19 18:53pm]

  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #117 posted 09/21/19 6:15am

poppys

toejam said:

poppys said:

You have to wonder about people who demand specific answers on a public discussion website.

.

Why wonder? If it's a public discussion forum, then ask them directly whatever it is you're wondering about! wink

.

onlyforaminute said:
I hate it when "discussions " turn like this. Even science gets taught to the young when every detail is not known. If you don't think so then you need to explain exactly what dark energy is. Or be a true advocate for not teaching youngsters anything until it can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt. What a waste of energy.

.
I am not advocating teaching youngsters only things which can be proven. I am not one of those who think we should only believe that which can be proven. It's an untenable scenario. I can't "prove" that I'm not going to be involved in a serious car accident next time I drive. But the evidence is compelling to me that I *almost certainly* won't. It always comes down to where the evidence is pointing - not what can be "proven". I was simply asking Ian at what age he began teaching his children that Jesus-God was real and what reasons he gave them for thinking so. In my many years of conversations with Ian, it's clear to me that he does not have good reasons for beliving in a virgin-conceived, literally-risen, Trinitarian Jesus-God. There are better reasons for thinking that Jesus was just another cult hero with a falsely-attributed 'miraculous-conception' story, who simply stayed dead after his death, and is not the singular God of monotheism, etc. But Ian has said he's not interested in engaging. That's fine. Moving on!


My statement did not mean the kind of wonder as in wanting to know. I mean the kind of wonder regarding the motives of people who badger others for their views in a way that is demanding and confrontational. But I think you know that and are just trying to keep your angle of this discussion going any way you can. There are a few others here who use that tactic. It never works very well, and shows the negative intent of the questioner more than anything else.



What Ian teaches his children is none of your business in the first place. The topic could be discussed without it and is off-limits in my book. You've tried it repeatedly:

^Did you tell your kids that Jesus-God is real?

At what age did you start teaching them that Jesus-God was real?

^You taught them positively about Islam? Care to elaborate?

I'd like to know what age your children were when started teaching them that Jesus-God was real?

...simply asking Ian at what age he began teaching his children that Jesus-God was real

Ian has been much more open than I would ever be when asked these kinds of questions in the mocking context you ask them in. I would have "simply" told you to fuck off. Your motives here are pretty transparent. You seem to be obsessed with messing with Ian more than anything else - in a very adolescent way. Troll territory.

"if you can't clap on the one, then don't clap at all"
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #118 posted 09/21/19 8:11am

maplenpg

avatar

toejam said:

I support not bombing Muslims either. I'd rather help educate them out of the superstition that is Islam.


.

Toejam - I too am an atheist. Yet I fall short of trying to 'educate' anyone out of any religion. It has to be each to their own, otherwise it ends up being divisive and no-one gets anywhere. People believe what they want to believe, everyone has their own 'truth', and if believing in life after death, or heaven, or a book, brings people hope, peace, or joy, or even just a bit of company, then who I am to try and 'educate' them differently? When any one group of people takes the superior high ground and tries to start forcing educating another group to believe what they do, then I think it we start treading on very shaky ground indeed.

The Org is my playground and y'all are my playmates.
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Reply #119 posted 09/21/19 2:41pm

toejam

avatar

Poppys, I'm lost as to why you see my questions to Ian about how/when/what he taught his children about Jesus-God as "demanding". Ian was already discussing how he did not teach his children that Santa was real. Ian sarcastically answered the first of my questions and said he didn't want to answer any more. And I've already said that's fine. So I'm not sure how this counts as "demanding" and "trolling". I'm also not sure why asking questions about how/when/what one teaches their children about religion is off limits. I'm not forcing him to answer. He's already said he doesn't want to engage, and that's fine.

.
[Edited 9/21/19 14:57pm]
Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell
  - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator
Page 4 of 7 <1234567>
  New topic   Printable     (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)
« Previous topic  Next topic »
Forums > Politics & Religion > My One And Only Thread On Religion