To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 25638
25637  |  25639
Subject: 
Re: The Brick Testament: A Family Stoned and a City Massacred
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Mon, 13 Sep 2004 17:24:53 GMT
Viewed: 
1891 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:

   Jesus summed it up nicely into: “Love God with all of your heart, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself.”

That’s all you really need to know and do.

But I think you are being a little disingenuous WRT to worshipping a God.

How so? (And I ask this sincerely!)

   If you could describe an ideal God whom to worship, what would He be like? I have an idea what you will say, but I want to hear about the God of Dave!

My spider-sense tells me that this is an attempt to trick me into formulating an ontological argument for God’s existence, but I’ll give it a try anyway.

First of all, I’m not sure that I would worship any being for two reasons:

Any entity who requires my worship isn’t worthy of my worship.

Any entity who’d be bothered by my lack of worship isn’t worthy of my worship.

I might really, really admire some entity or other, and I might have tremendous respect for some entity, but worship? I can’t see it, honestly. Maybe I have trouble with the definition, since it’s steeped in a kind of belief that I do not share--could you provide a guideline for what “worship” entails? I mean, during my zany youth I “worshipped” a certain actress who shall remain nameless, but I suspect that you have something else in mind in this context.

   You can believe the sky is yellow (or that God doesn’t exist), but as long as you respect others and are a good person, what’s the big, ahem, deal? God is much more interested in how we treat each other WAAAY more than what we believe IMO.

Forgive me, but this strikes me as a major shift in the way you articulate your belief. I find this formulation more palatable, but I must confess that it surprises me.

  
   Well, don’t assume that an atheist will automatically mock the bible. I may not believe that the book was inspired by a deity, but a secure believer should hardly consider a differing viewpoint to be mocking.

Hmmm. Most atheists I know have a pretty condescending attitude towards religion.

Tit for tat. I have seldom---correction: I have never met a self-professed Christian who did not, upon learning that I’m atheist, make some sort of “aww, that’s too bad” declaration, as if I have a mental shortcoming to be pitied. I can generally shrug it off, in much the same way that it means nothing to me when people laugh at my utter ignorance of baseball or golf, but the sentiment is condescending regardless of my thick skin!

  
   Leviticus is still commonly invoked to condemn homosexuality or excesses of alcohol consumptions. I note with interest once again that condemnations of shellfish consumption are less common, as are entreaties not to touch menstruating women. Hmm...

Look, just because one is a Christian doesn’t mean that they are necessarily clear thinkers. There is great confusion among Christians WRT to understanding the OT in context of the NT.

This, too, seems to represent an evolution in the way you articulate your view, and honestly I welcome it! The problem is that the self-professed Christians who have the power to dictate public policy are very seldom challenged by similarly powerful Christians with opposing views. Almost invariably the default answer is “well, I disagree for the most part, but at least he’s basing his view on the Bible.”

That may be a fundamental logical difference between atheists and theists; no two atheists will ever agree solely because a book instructed them a certain way; the argument must stand on its own without resorting to the deus ex machina of biblical invocation. Of course, this doesn’t judge the underlying intelligence of the atheist or theist--merely a difference in logical approach. I admit, though, that I prefer the atheists’ rhetorical method.

Dave!



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: The Brick Testament: A Family Stoned and a City Massacred
 
(...) Read below. (...) No, no, not at all. My secret suspicion was that you could never worship any kind of god. I think I was correct by your responses below... (...) Never said worship was required. Besides, if it is your ideal God, then He (...) (20 years ago, 16-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
  Re: The Brick Testament: A Family Stoned and a City Massacred
 
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote: SNIP (...) SNIP (...) Sorry for bringing up an old thread, and for beating a dead horse. It's not in my nature to evangelize, but the Catholic in me has been bothered by these two statements. I've been (...) (20 years ago, 8-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: The Brick Testament: A Family Stoned and a City Massacred
 
(...) That is why Jesus summed it up nicely into: "Love God with all of your heart, soul and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself." That's all you really need to know and do. But I think you are being a little disingenuous WRT to worshipping (...) (20 years ago, 10-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)

62 Messages in This Thread:



















Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact

This Message and its Replies on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR