Alas, religious fundamentalists

Mr Laurier

Active member
i do pity religious fundamentalists.
If their god exists, they are in trouble either way.
EDIT PER MOD
OTOH, if their god is a decent and moral deity... they will have a lot of questions to answer after they die.
So which is it?
EDIT PER MOD
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Thistle

Well-known member
I just listened to your video blog, and you got mostly everything about God exactly right. Given you described God upwards of 95% correct, I'm at a loss as to your general hostility "cosmic sky bully" etc.. God is going to ask every person, every Christian all those questions you just posed. And you are right, it will be very uncomfortable, for every Christian, just like every non-Christian. One standard for everybody. And guess what? Everybody will fail the test. But once everybody fails the process is not completely over. Along with the book of all those good and evil deeds a person did, there is another record. It's the book of life. If your name is written there it's because you took plan B. Plan A was to be judged by the record you just failed on. Plan B was to sign yourself over to Jesus. He's going to heaven, and he will take you with him, because he's taking all his stuff, including you, if you sign yourself over. But your right about one thing. You're not your own man any longer. So you've got a moral obligation to act like Jesus, all those traits you admitted were so admirable. But make no mistake. It's not like Christians are groveling. They just have a very clear eyed assessment of how far short they fall every day, of meeting the Jesus standard.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
I just listened to your video blog, and you got mostly everything about God exactly right. Given you described God upwards of 95% correct, I'm at a loss as to your general hostility "cosmic sky bully" etc.. God is going to ask every person, every Christian all those questions you just posed. And you are right, it will be very uncomfortable, for every Christian, just like every non-Christian. One standard for everybody. And guess what? Everybody will fail the test. But once everybody fails the process is not completely over. Along with the book of all those good and evil deeds a person did, there is another record. It's the book of life. If your name is written there it's because you took plan B. Plan A was to be judged by the record you just failed on. Plan B was to sign yourself over to Jesus. He's going to heaven, and he will take you with him, because he's taking all his stuff, including you, if you sign yourself over. But your right about one thing. You're not your own man any longer. So you've got a moral obligation to act like Jesus, all those traits you admitted were so admirable. But make no mistake. It's not like Christians are groveling. They just have a very clear eyed assessment of how far short they fall every day, of meeting the Jesus standard.
So you consider your god to be a bully. And you still worship him.
And you think that this predetermined game, already rigged, is somehow reasonable.
What record did I fail on?
And how did I fail on it?
And how does signing myself over to Jesus help?
And "stuff"? You do understand that I am not anybody's "stuff".
Why would I want to not be my own man?
 

Thistle

Well-known member
So you consider your god to be a bully. And you still worship him.
He's not, so I don't.
And you think that this predetermined game, already rigged, is somehow reasonable.
God is necessary, it's the universe that is contingent. If the universe seems to us the pinnacle of tangible-ness it's only because we were born within the confines of it's walls, so to speak. What we know about everything is limited in such a way that we can't see the most real thing of all. So looking at God purely through the universe, as spectacular and big as it may appear to us, is like trying to look at the universe through a pin hole in a cardboard box. So if this all seems like a "game" to you, it's a function of the fact that you're not working with enough information to see things as they really are, on the ground of your limited perspective.
What record did I fail on?
It's not important for me to know that. As you are not in the family of God, I have no ground for judging you whatsoever. You make this point in your video blog very properly, Christians should be more worried about judging each other, because we agree on a standard. You dispute my standard of morality, so on what ground could I possibly apply it to you?
And how did I fail on it?
That is a very logical question, and the answer is a little bit circuitous. It's clear from your blog that you do have a standard of morality or you could level no complaint against Christianity. Somewhere in your life you've violated your own standard, and violated your conscience. But lets look at a hypothetical so as not to make this personal. Let's say we had someone who couldn't hurt their conscience, a sociopath or a psychopath would be such a person. They would still use categories of right and wrong, fair and unfair when judging other peoples behavior toward them. Someone will tell them you are not judging your behavior toward me, like you judge my behavior toward you. So even a sociopath or a psychopath can't get through life without realizing they are guilty of violating their own moral code. Someone will alert them to their behavior and their rational faculty will confirm to them that the criticism is right. In other words, we are all in the same boat. We've not lived up to the moral reasoning we have already worked out. We have known this from the first time one of our childhood friends looked us square in the eye and said, "hey, that's not fair." I'm not worried about the times when our friend was wrong, I'm talking about the times you know he was right. If there is no morally perfect God we can all just grade on the curve and cut each other some slack. We have to decide when people go to far, in which we get into law and so on. But if God is the creator of this universe and the sovereign of this universe then every time we've wronged anyone is an assault on God himself. The person we wronged was a creature of his Creator and a subject of this Sovereign. This is just as true as if someone attacked one of your children, or your wife. That attack is an assault on you. The problem is there is no grading on the curve between us and God because he is morally perfect. We are not just accountable for the times that our morality doesn't rise to community standards, we are also responsible for the great chasm between community standards and God's perfection.
And how does signing myself over to Jesus help?
Because Jesus is going to be glorified in heaven, and everything that belongs to him will be glorified with him. If you belong to him, you will be glorified in heaven. This current universe we are in is not an option. It will be recreated into a new heaven and new earth. That is what we call heaven. That is where you want to be because no one will be punished there, because everyone there belongs to Jesus. Jesus paid for every one of them by drinking the cup of the wrath of God unmixed to the dregs having lived a perfect life and having no debt to pay. Given that he is a divine person of the God head he didn't have an inherent obligation to God to live a perfect life on the ground that God didn't create him. But he assumed the work of our redemption by receiving in himself the wrath that we deserve. This was a completely voluntary operation in every conceivable way. So yes, God really did love us that much.
And "stuff"? You do understand that I am not anybody's "stuff".
Of course. You are a rugged individualist. If you don't need someone to drink the cup of Gods wrath for you, you're free to drink it yourself.
Why would I want to not be my own man?
That is a question for you to answer. Understand this, God does not intend for you to drink that cup of wrath. But if you don't accept his pardon and sign yourself over to Jesus, you will. God gave you this option because God is love. In particular God loves you. God can't provide a third option because God is morally holy, and the only thing that prevents God's holiness from being destroyed on the fulcrum of his immutability is judgment day.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
He's not, so I don't.

God is necessary, it's the universe that is contingent.
Lol. No.
The universe is observable.
God is next to Unicorn and Hobgoblin.
Of course. You are a rugged individualist. If you don't need someone to drink the cup of Gods wrath for you, you're free to drink it yourself.
Nope.
Try again.
Aside from utterly rejecting the Randian fantasy. I also have no ABILITY to drink a cup of God's wrath, given that there is no such thing.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Lol. No.
The universe is observable.
What do you think contingent means? Hint, it doesn't mean not tangible.
God is next to Unicorn and Hobgoblin.
God is not extended in space. And were there any Unicorns and Hobgoblins they would be.
Nope.
Try again.
Aside from utterly rejecting the Randian fantasy. I also have no ABILITY to drink a cup of God's wrath, given that there is no such thing.
If you tried to embody an analogy the closest you could get is symbolism, but you still wouldn't achieve your objective. So your left to address what it means.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
What do you think contingent means? Hint, it doesn't mean not tangible.

God is not extended in space. And were there any Unicorns and Hobgoblins they would be.

If you tried to embody an analogy the closest you could get is symbolism, but you still wouldn't achieve your objective. So your left to address what it means.
It means "dependent on factors we may not be aware of". And I have never thought it meant "not tangible". So your "correction" is rather misplaced.
And no, the universe is not "contingent" in any way.


God is also not real. just like Unicorn and Hobgoblin.


Ayn Rand created the whole "rugged individualist" fantasy in her idea of the "perfect" man. No analogy is needed.
The "rugged individualist" is the "every man for himself" ideal of the Neo-Conservative revival. The polar opposite of everything I stand for.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
It means "dependent on factors we may not be aware of".
It means did doesn't exist as of necessity.
And I have never thought it meant "not tangible". So your "correction" is rather misplaced.
Correction noted.
And no, the universe is not "contingent" in any way.
We can discuss that. Why does the universe have to exist? We agree it does exist. But why couldn't it have just as easily not have existed?
God is also not real. just like Unicorn and Hobgoblin.
We've been over this ground.
Ayn Rand created the whole "rugged individualist" fantasy in her idea of the "perfect" man. No analogy is needed.
The "rugged individualist" is the "every man for himself" ideal of the Neo-Conservative revival. The polar opposite of everything I stand for.
You stand for a retro-Conservative revival, a communist revival, a post modern revival, a social justice revival? What exactly do you stand for?
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
It means did doesn't exist as of necessity.

Correction noted.

We can discuss that. Why does the universe have to exist? We agree it does exist. But why couldn't it have just as easily not have existed?

We've been over this ground.

You stand for a retro-Conservative revival, a communist revival, a post modern revival, a social justice revival? What exactly do you stand for?
Huh?


Thankyou.


It doesn't have to exist. But yes, It DOES exist.


Indeed.


Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Basic human decency, and rationality.
 

Mike McK

Active member
If their god is the petty and vapid, superficial, incompetent, thug, they imagine... they are stuck groveling to their cosmic sky bully forever.
Is your god the discount store megalomaniac you want? Or the lofty and enlightened figure of love and compassion you sometimes try to pass hm off as?

Your ignorance is duly noted.
 

Authentic Nouveau

Well-known member
If their god is the petty and vapid, superficial, incompetent, thug, they imagine... they are stuck groveling to their cosmic sky bully forever.

Is your god the discount store megalomaniac you want? Or the lofty and enlightened figure of love and compassion you sometimes try to pass hm off as?
Atheists don't think for themselves.
You plagiarize and mimic your religious fundie icon Dick Dawkins.

Hatetheists.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”​



― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Coward Dawkins
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
Atheists don't think for themselves.
You plagiarize and mimic your religious fundie icon Dick Dawkins.

Hatetheists.

“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”​



― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Coward Dawkins
We d think for ourselves. Thats how we became atheists.
Who do I plagiarize? Who do I mimic? I have no "religious fundie icon Dick Dawkins" to either plagiarize or mimic.

And a neologism.

And a quote that is actualy pretty much accurate.

And a smear.
 

Thistle

Well-known member
Huh?

Thankyou.

It doesn't have to exist. But yes, It DOES exist.
Okay, then we agree. That is the definition of the universe being contingent. It just so happens to exist, although it could have been otherwise.
Indeed.

Nope. Nope. Nope. Nope. Basic human decency, and rationality.
I certainly agree with that. But that is just a piece of what Christians stand for.
 

Mr Laurier

Active member
Okay, then we agree. That is the definition of the universe being contingent. It just so happens to exist, although it could have been otherwise.

I certainly agree with that. But that is just a piece of what Christians stand for.
And?
The OP was about christian fundamentalism, and islamic fundamentalism, and jewish fundamentalism. Not christianity.
Just a reminder. Alas, someone has removed some wrds, to help add confusion to the thread.
 
Top