Politics and prayer

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-07-2016 4:13pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

The purpose of deferring to you is not to inspire you but to acknowledge your presence as a non believer. The purpose of the speech is to inspire. Framing the speech in a prayer need not detract from the picture.

Why does it have to be a "prayer"? Why can't it just be an inspirational speech without any mentions of "god" or religion?

PopePalpatine · 12-07-2016 4:17pm

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Mechanisation is the only difference, Imagine the Crusade with our technology. Took longer to kill people in the past in the same numbers.

I've only just read the first 20 posts of this thread, but Genghis Khan was estimated to have killed at least 10 million people in the 13th century, and the Taiping Rebellion of the mid-19th century killed at least 20 million - the latter being sparked by a Christian movement.

realitykeeper · 12-07-2016 8:45pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why does it have to be a "prayer"? Why can't it just be an inspirational speech without any mentions of "god" or religion?

That is deference to the faithful. God good for Christians, Jews and Muslims. He also brings out the best in us.

Timberrrrrrrr · 12-07-2016 8:56pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

That is deference to the faithful. God good for Christians, Jews and Muslims. He also brings out the best in us.

Why should non believers defer to the faithful though?

realitykeeper · 12-07-2016 11:40pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why should non believers defer to the faithful though?

To reciprocate.

Pawwed Rig · 13-07-2016 7:54am

realitykeeper wrote: »

That is deference to the faithful. God good for Christians, Jews and Muslims. He also brings out the best in us.

Does he?
That is a strange statement in a country where the faithful are afforded more rights and privileges than non believers.

Timberrrrrrrr · 13-07-2016 8:35am

realitykeeper wrote: »

To reciprocate.

Reciprocate what exactly?

realitykeeper · 13-07-2016 1:26pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Reciprocate what exactly?

To reciprocate deference to non believers.

PopePalpatine · 13-07-2016 1:38pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

To reciprocate deference to non believers.

We're still no closer to knowing what this "deference" means. Does it mean allowing us to remain citizens of this country? Does it mean not prioritising those of "the right religion" against atheists and agnostics in admissions list in hospitals with a "religious ethos" (whatever the fuck that means)? Does it mean not having an official State-enforced religion?

Timberrrrrrrr · 13-07-2016 1:39pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

To reciprocate deference to non believers.

Why does anyone need to defer to anyone?

realitykeeper · 13-07-2016 2:00pm

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Does he?
That is a strange statement in a country where the faithful are afforded more rights and privileges than non believers.

Assuming it is true, that god sacrificed his son for the salvation of sinners, then humanity owes God a debt of gratitude. Assuming it is false, then there is no debt owing. Given that you cannot know whether or not God exists, the non believer runs the risk of breathtaking ingratitude.

The institutions of the state were generally built by the faithful for the faithful. Non believers would better themselves by adopting gratitude as a practical virtue.

Timberrrrrrrr · 13-07-2016 2:06pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Assuming it is true, that god sacrificed his son for the salvation of sinners, then humanity owes God a debt of gratitude. Assuming it is false, then there is no debt owing. Given that you cannot know whether or not God exists, the non believer runs the risk of breathtaking ingratitude.

Seeing as your "god" allegedly gave me free will then that is my choice to make wetter I show this gratitude or not.

The institutions of the state were generally built by the faithful for the faithful. Non believers would better themselves by adopting gratitude as a practical virtue.

They also raped children, should we show rhem gratitude for that too?

Satriale · 13-07-2016 2:12pm

realitykeeper wrote: »

Assuming it is true, that god sacrificed his son for the salvation of sinners, then humanity owes God a debt of gratitude. Assuming it is false, then there is no debt owing. Given that you cannot know whether or not God exists, the non believer runs the risk of breathtaking ingratitude.

The institutions of the state were generally built by the faithful for the faithful. Non believers would better themselves by adopting gratitude as a practical virtue.

If God "sacrificed" his son there is no debt owing anyway.
Stay on your knees if you want, but i think you'd be better owing your gratitude to your generations of forebears that fought harsh lives so you could have those nice foam pads and heaters in church to suffer in in comfort and safety.

PopePalpatine · 13-07-2016 4:46pm

I'd rather owe gratitude to those who fought for workers to earn enough to afford to send their kids to school and have a better chance of a better life.

realitykeeper · 13-07-2016 7:26pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

We're still no closer to knowing what this "deference" means. Does it mean allowing us to remain citizens of this country? Does it mean not prioritising those of "the right religion" against atheists and agnostics in admissions list in hospitals with a "religious ethos" (whatever the fuck that means)? Does it mean not having an official State-enforced religion?

It is a form of address. It means acknowledging their presence. E.g. Dear Faithful let us pray and Dear faithless let us aspire for the goodwill and character that we the peoples servants need to fulfill our duties this day. Dear friends, as you are all to well aware, we have several matters in the order of business but I would like to draw your attention to one in particular ...

Then you get what would hopefully be a compelling argument.

realitykeeper · 13-07-2016 7:29pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why does anyone need to defer to anyone?

Out of politeness. It is common practice Ladies and Gentlemen.

realitykeeper · 13-07-2016 7:32pm

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Seeing as your "god" allegedly gave me free will then that is my choice to make wetter I show this gratitude or not.

Indeed, just as it is your choice whether you wish to go to Heaven or Hell.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

They also raped children, should we show rhem gratitude for that too?

I am sure you are right about non believers raping children but I did not mean those non believers should be grateful to themselves for such behaviour. I meant they should be grateful for all the good things others have done for them.

PopePalpatine · 13-07-2016 7:35pm

Ah, when I saw "defer to the believers", I was thinking more along the lines of "subjugation", i.e. the "culture of deference" by the State towards the RCC which made it too cowardly to take on its abuses.

realitykeeper · 13-07-2016 7:39pm

Satriale wrote: »

If God "sacrificed" his son there is no debt owing anyway.
Stay on your knees if you want, but i think you'd be better owing your gratitude to your generations of forebears that fought harsh lives so you could have those nice foam pads and heaters in church to suffer in in comfort and safety.

As indeed I do. I cannot agree with you on the former point though.

realitykeeper · 13-07-2016 7:42pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I'd rather owe gratitude to those who fought for workers to earn enough to afford to send their kids to school and have a better chance of a better life.

Why ration gratitude?

El_Duderino 09 · 13-07-2016 7:57pm

realitykeeper wrote:

Assuming it is true, that god sacrificed his son for the salvation of sinners, then humanity owes God a debt of gratitude. Assuming it is false, then there is no debt owing. Given that you cannot know whether or not God exists, the non believer runs the risk of breathtaking ingratitude.

So god made the rules. Then made a loophole for his rules which involved sacrificing himself to himself to satisfy the rules he created. Where do people fit in exactly? Sounds like a protection racket.

realitykeeper wrote:

Indeed, just as it is your choice whether you wish to go to Heaven or Hell.

Jimmy the Scumbag: 'Nice soul you got there. Shame if something were to happen to it. Show me some gratitude and I'll make sure you don't get beaten up'

RealityKeeper: 'Why would I get beaten up?'

Jimmy the Scumbag: 'Because I'll beat you up if you don't show me enough gratitude'.

The mind boggles that someone would volunteer to get involved in that type of relationship. Yet here you are proposing that we should show Jimmy the Scumbag some prophylactic gratitude just in case he exists.

realitykeeper · 13-07-2016 8:24pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

So god made the rules. Then made a loophole for his rules which involved sacrificing himself to himself to satisfy the rules he created. Where do people fit in exactly? Sounds like a protection racket.

A lot of people have this pagan understanding of the sacrifice. I think it was a necessity. If God had intervened to stop the crucifixion people could say it was fine for him, what about the rest of us. Also, if God did permit the murder of his son then the reason must have been important but not in the way a lot of people think. It was not like the Aztecs offering blood to a blood thirsty God. It was a necessary demonstration of selflessness to humanity. The fact that it was necessary is the reason it was a sacrifice.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Jimmy the Scumbag: 'Nice soul you got there. Shame if something were to happen to it. Show me some gratitude and I'll make sure you don't get beaten up'

RealityKeeper: 'Why would I get beaten up?'

Jimmy the Scumbag: 'Because I'll beat you up if you don't show me enough gratitude'.

The mind boggles that someone would volunteer to get involved in that type of relationship. Yet here you are proposing that we should show Jimmy the Scumbag some prophylactic gratitude just in case he exists.

If God exists, so does Satin. What happens to your soul is entirely up to you.

El_Duderino 09 · 13-07-2016 8:42pm

realitykeeper wrote:

A lot of people have this pagan understanding of the sacrifice. I think it was a necessity. If God had intervened to stop the crucifixion people could say it was fine for him, what about the rest of us. Also, if God did permit the murder of his son then the reason must have been important but not in the way a lot of people think. It was not like the Aztecs offering blood to a blood thirsty God. It was a necessary demonstration of selflessness to humanity. The *fact* that it was necessary is the reason it was a sacrifice.

Fast and loose with the word 'fact'.

Sorry, does god make the rules or not. If god made the rules then the 'pagan understanding' stands.

realitykeeper wrote:

If God exists, so does Satin. What happens to your soul is entirely up to you.

Classic failure of logic inspired by wishful thinking. If god were to be demonstrated to exist, you would know God exists. That is all. The devil would need it's own demonstrating of existence. But sure anything goes if you wish hard enough

realitykeeper · 13-07-2016 9:06pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Fast and loose with the word 'fact'.

Sorry, does god make the rules or not. If god made the rules then the 'pagan understanding' stands.

The rules stand anyway. Humanity could thrive but will probably self destruct. The reason, breaking the rules. The rules are probably the difference between Heaven and Hell.

I think it would be good if everyone choose to be selfless, like capitalism but with lots of generosity.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Classic failure of logic inspired by wishful thinking. If god were to be demonstrated to exist, you would know God exists. That is all. The devil would need it's own demonstrating of existence.

Yes but if we assume for the sake of argument that God and Satan do exist, it is easy to understand why they will not reveal themselves. God will not reveal himself because he wants people to do what is right because it is right and not because he will reward them. Satan will not reveal himself because if he did, people would turn to God in a hurry.

El_Duderino 09 · 13-07-2016 9:18pm

realitykeeper wrote:

The rules stand anyway. Humanity could thrive but will probably self destruct. The reason, breaking the rules. The rules are probably the difference between Heaven and Hell.

Sorry, does god make the rules or not? If yes the 'pagan understanding' stands. If not, who does make them?

realitykeeper wrote:

I think it would be good if everyone choose to be selfless, like capitalism but with lots of generosity.

You're monologuing.

realitykeeper wrote:

Yes but if we assume for the sake of argument that God and Satan do exist, it is easy to understand why they will not reveal themselves. God will not reveal himself because he wants people to do what is right because it is right and not because he will reward them. Satan will not reveal himself because if he did, people would turn to God in a hurry.

Monologuing again. Why did he send Jesus to preach if he didn't want to reveal himself? Was Jesus going rogue when he preached and did miracles in front of people? It doesn't make sense, you do understand that?

realitykeeper · 13-07-2016 11:14pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sorry, does god make the rules or not? If yes the 'pagan understanding' stands. If not, who does make them?

Ok to answer this question it is worth considering what Jesus cried out with His dying breath: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

If God does not exist then that is the answer to the question.

If God does exist, there are two possible answers.

The first is that God didn`t love His son and wanted to see Him suffer.

The second possible answer is intriguing because to consider it, you must first understand the reason Jesus asked the question. It was not because He wanted to know the answer but because He wanted the faithful to consider the question. When the faithful consider the question then the answer is that God had to let Jesus suffer and die as an example and as a demonstration to humanity of His love for us and the importance of Christ`s message.

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Monologuing again. Why did he send Jesus to preach if he didn't want to reveal himself? Was Jesus going rogue when he preached and did miracles in front of people? It doesn't make sense, you do understand that?

To answer this question, consider the following scenario. Supposing everyone in the world began claiming that God appeared to them. Would you believe them if God did not appear to you? Just because Jesus came, preached and did miracles does not count as proof or empirical evidence of the existence of God. Jesus came as a messenger but for the billions who did not see the miracles personally, faith is still required.

realitykeeper · 13-07-2016 11:45pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Sorry, does god make the rules or not? If yes the 'pagan understanding' stands. If not, who does make them?
Why did he send Jesus to preach if he didn't want to reveal himself? Was Jesus going rogue when he preached and did miracles in front of people? It doesn't make sense, you do understand that?

Understanding is a crucial component to these questions. Consider the following statement from Revelation 13:18. Let he who has understanding calculate the number of the beast ...

To me, this suggests that it is the lack of understanding or the presence of confusion that is an integral part of the nature of the beast.

Now consider this in tandem with the following from Mathew 13:13. This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing they do not see. Though hearing they do not hear or understand.

and from Mathew 13:19. When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches it away.

So speaking as someone who believes in God, I think that understanding or at least striving to understand is pro God and anti Satan.

El_Duderino 09 · 14-07-2016 7:45am

realitykeeper wrote:

Ok to answer this question it is worth considering what Jesus cried out with His dying breath: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

It's actually a much simpler question than that.

realitykeeper wrote:

If God does exist, there are two possible answers.

There are 2 answers that you wish to consider and there are WAY more possible answers. For example the god might be a natural phenomenon, bound by the rules of the universe. Or God could make up silly rules and strange loopholes as a way to amuse itself. Or god might be all powerful but not very bright and made a hash of it first time around. Or god might actually be quite cruel and enjoy the idea of its followers having no good evidence but punish them if they don't accept him.

You can't eliminate any of those possibilities and you can't demonstrate the few potential possibilities you proposed either.

The question was: Does god make the rules or not?

The honest answer is that you haven't a clue because of the lack of evidence.

realitykeeper wrote:

To answer this question, consider the following scenario. Supposing everyone in the world began claiming that God appeared to them. Would you believe them if God did not appear to you? Just because Jesus came, preached and did miracles does not count as proof or empirical evidence of the existence of God. Jesus came as a messenger but for the billions who did not see the miracles personally, faith is still required.

The claim in the Bible is that god appeared to lots of people. He wrestled with one character ( Jacob I think). Jacob couldn't have had faith if he actually had evidence.

Basically you're using lack of evidence of existence as evidence of existence.

The standards of evidence are unique for your god. You wouldn't accept the existence of anyone else or anything important with similar evidence. Maybe you would but you'd be credulous.

El_Duderino 09 · 14-07-2016 7:57am

realitykeeper wrote:

Understanding is a crucial component to these questions. Consider the following statement from Revelation 13:18. Let he who has understanding calculate the number of the beast ...

I'm not quoting the whole post because it's a semantic tap dance. I asked a really simple question, which was: Does god make the rules?

The tap dance around the meaning of 'understand' is probably more telling than you think.

1 if there was evidence one way or the other, the answer would be 'yes' or 'no' followed by the evidence.

2 Your actual answer was a limited set of possible answers followed by a reason for a lack of evidence for god.

3 use the lack of evidence for god as evidence for god.

4 a tap dance around the meaning of 'understand'. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, 'it depends on your understanding, of understanding'.

Maybe you didn't understand the question.

Timberrrrrrrr · 14-07-2016 8:35am

realitykeeper wrote: »

It is a form of address. It means acknowledging their presence. E.g. [fellow members let us aspire for the goodwill and character that we the peoples servants need to fulfill our duties this day. Dear friends, as you are all to well aware, we have several matters in the order of business but I would like to draw your attention to one in particular ...[/I]

Then you get what would hopefully be a compelling argument.

Why does faith or prayer have to be mentioned though? why not the simpler version I have made it above where religion is taken out of the equation? It's still the same "inspiring message" just without any religious connotations.

Politics and prayer

Comments