To be fair: I’m also a God denier, an enemy of God beliefs

[SalixIncendium]

I don’t want to discuss that in this thread. Try this one: Jim’s views and goals

I think @adrian009's question is relevant to this thread and your dismissal of the question was rude and disrespectful.

Threads aren't real estate. You don't get to pick and choose where a topic is discussed in each one, even if you create the thread. You created a thread in religious debates. If you don't want to answer the question, say you don't, concede your view, or simply don't respond.

-I- want to discuss it here. It would appear that @adrian009 does, too.

So, how do you reconcile the denial of the Abrahamic God with the teachings of Baha'u'llah?

 

[Jim]

I think @adrian009's question is relevant to this thread and your dismissal of the question was rude and disrespectful.

Threads aren't real estate. You don't get to pick and choose where a topic is discussed in each one, even if you create the thread. You created a thread in religious debates. If you don't want to answer the question, say you don't, concede your view, or simply don't respond.

-I- want to discuss it here. It would appear that @adrian009 does, too.

So, how do you reconcile the denial of the Abrahamic God with the teachings of Baha'u'llah?

Is that a moderator or administrator decision?

 

[Spirit of Light]

There might be some contexts where there’s no harm in calling a direct word-for-word quotation of the words of God in some scriptures “what God says.” What I’m denouncing is people saying things that are not direct quotes from the scriptures and calling that “what God says,” to validate what they’re saying in opposition to other people’s beliefs.

Well yes it would of course be better if they said. "in my understanding, this is the word of God" That means it is their understanding of what God do say. So then they are not actually wrong

 

[SalixIncendium]

Is that a moderator or administrator decision?

Nope. It's forum etiquette. Now can we stay on topic, please?

 

[Desert Snake]

I’ll narrow down what I’m saying, and say say that I’m denouncing the practice of people calling their beliefs “what God says,” to validate them in opposition to the beliefs of others, I don’t mean that it’s always malicious. I mean that I think it’s harmful, whether people intend it that way or not.

Consider this. The most usual way to describe god, for me, I've never even written on the forums.

That's because we use texts as argument material, and they contain ideas that can be used for other ideas.

So, my arguments are 'all about the texts', whether i use those ideas directly, etc.

 

[Desert Snake]

'Debate and discussion', in other words. With some form of format.

 

[stvdv]

Someone pointed out some one-sidedness in a thread that I started, I’m a science denier, an enemy of science, so I decided to try to balance that out with this thread.

What I’m denying is the validity of all proofs of the existence or reality of the God of Abraham. Saying that I’m an enemy of God beliefs doesn’t mean that I want to campaign against them. It means that I’m denouncing the practice of people calling their beliefs “what God says,” and what I’m promoting might undermine that.

Actually, what I’m denouncing is people using their beliefs, religious beliefs and science beliefs, to excuse and camouflage unloving attitudes and behavior, but I think that’s inseparable from the practice of people calling their beliefs “what God says” and “what science says.”

If anyone wants to discuss my views about science beliefs, I would rather do it in the other thread. In this thread I only want to discuss my views about God beliefs, people calling their beliefs “what God says.”

Sound more like you denouncing people and not their belief.

I clearly read something totally different in Jim's words ... he distinguishes "actions" from "people". As do I.

So if you disagree that much you denouncing them, then you denouncing the people who har their own belief.

If someone likes to hit me in the face for no good reason, I avoid those people too, because I see no use to give them the opportunity to be violent.
There is a huge difference between "having a belief" and committing violent actions. Jim talks about actions done in name of religion IMO.

Question: should everyone belive the same as you do?

He never said that.

 

[Desert Snake]

Again, just seems vague. Anyways that's it for this discussion, for me.

 

[PruePhillip]

Someone pointed out some one-sidedness in a thread that I started, I’m a science denier, an enemy of science, so I decided to try to balance that out with this thread.

What I’m denying is the validity of all proofs of the existence or reality of the God of Abraham. Saying that I’m an enemy of God beliefs doesn’t mean that I want to campaign against them. It means that I’m denouncing the practice of people calling their beliefs “what God says,” and what I’m promoting might undermine that.

Actually, what I’m denouncing is people using their beliefs, religious beliefs and science beliefs, to excuse and camouflage unloving attitudes and behavior, but I think that’s inseparable from the practice of people calling their beliefs “what God says” and “what science says.”

If anyone wants to discuss my views about science beliefs, I would rather do it in the other thread. In this thread I only want to discuss my views about God beliefs, people calling their beliefs “what God says.”

I have my profile below to point out that a burning question of the 20th Century -
"Can we build a moral society without religion" has more or less been answered.
In fact, the question isn't even asked now because "moral" is considered a social
construct, just like "truth" is.

 

[sojourner]

There might be some contexts where there’s no harm in calling a direct word-for-word quotation of the words of God in some scriptures “what God says.” What I’m denouncing is people saying things that are not direct quotes from the scriptures and calling that “what God says,” to validate what they’re saying in opposition to other people’s beliefs.

I think what you’re after here is a literalistic reading of the Bible (or other sacred text; I can’t speak to those beliefs). I think this is dangerous, first, because the texts are not meant to be read literalistically; many are highly metaphoric and any notion we have of the Divine is also necessarily metaphoric. Second, at least from a biblical POV, the texts are multivalent; any interpretation is only a single voice in a chorus. Third, interpretations are from one person’s perspective, many times a person who is not adept in the practice of exegesis. Fourth, the Bible was written out of several ancient, Near Eastern cultures. Fifth, some of the OT is lifted from the mythos of other ancient religions.

So, we have a highly metaphorical and fluidly multivalent collection of ancient writings, coming from a multiplicity of human writers out of several cultural and religious contexts, none of which is in English. These texts are read by non-scholars literalistically, from a position of confirmation bias. They then attach all the authority of a universal Divine to their “interpretation” (which is necessarily narrow), and foist it upon everyone in the world.

What this amounts to is self-aggrandizement masquerading as either piety or righteous evangelism. “God’s Words” are really “my words.” It’s disingenuous and, really, indefensible.

 

[Jim]

Hi Jim.

How do you reconcile 'being a God denier' with ...?

Did you read my explanation of what I meant by “God denier” in the OP?

 

[savagewind]

Someone pointed out some one-sidedness in a thread that I started, I’m a science denier, an enemy of science, so I decided to try to balance that out with this thread.

What I’m denying is the validity of all proofs of the existence or reality of the God of Abraham. Saying that I’m an enemy of God beliefs doesn’t mean that I want to campaign against them. It means that I’m denouncing the practice of people calling their beliefs “what God says,” and what I’m promoting might undermine that.

Actually, what I’m denouncing is people using their beliefs, religious beliefs and science beliefs, to excuse and camouflage unloving attitudes and behavior, but I think that’s inseparable from the practice of people calling their beliefs “what God says” and “what science says.”

If anyone wants to discuss my views about science beliefs, I would rather do it in the other thread. In this thread I only want to discuss my views about God beliefs, people calling their beliefs “what God says.”

I agree! But, I believe in God and in what God wills for me. I do not call God's will what God says. I call God's will special for each person. What God's will is for you is not what God's will is for me.

What God's will was for the writer of Scripture is not what God's will is for every person. God does not speak to me but I am certain as a person can be that God helps me.

Now, I found the help of God by what people had written about the will of God. So, I think that to some people, God does say something.

 

[blü 2]

What I’m denying is the validity of all proofs of the existence or reality of the God of Abraham. Saying that I’m an enemy of God beliefs doesn’t mean that I want to campaign against them.

In answer to the question, What do you mean by 'God'?, there doesn't appear to be a definition appropriate for a real god (such that if we met a real candidate, we could tell whether [it] was God or not) ─ which seems to confirm that all gods are imaginary. Does that concern you?

Actually, what I’m denouncing is people using their beliefs, religious beliefs and science beliefs, to excuse and camouflage unloving attitudes and behavior

I note you want to talk about the God part, but just quickly, what's an example of using science as an excuse for unloving behavior? Is it limited to experiments on lab animals or do you have something more general in mind?

 

[Jim]

So you become an Atheist ...?

I’m denying the validity of all proofs of the existence or reality of God. I’m not saying that He isn’t real, or that He doesn’t exist. I’m denying the validity of any proof of that. I don’t claim to know, myself, if He is real or not.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I’m denying the validity of all proofs of the existence or reality of God. I’m not saying that He isn’t real, or that He doesn’t exist. I’m denying the validity of any proof of that. I don’t claim to know, myself, if He is real or not.

Thank you for your answer

 

[Jim]

Hi Jim.

How do you reconcile 'being a God denier' with 'learning to be a follower of Baha'u'llah'?

I don’t want to discuss my relationship with Bahá’u’lláh in this thread. I would be glad to discuss that with you in the thread about my views and goals.

As I explained in the OP, what I mean by “God denier” is that I deny the validity of all proofs of the existence or reality of God. Not denying that He exists or is real. Only denying that it can be proven.

 

[Jim]

In answer to the question, What do you mean by 'God'?, there doesn't appear to be a definition appropriate for a real god (such that if we met a real candidate, we could tell whether [it] was God or not) ─ which seems to confirm that all gods are imaginary. Does that concern you?

Speaking only of the God of Abraham, it doesn’t matter to me if He exists or is real, or not. It looks to me like He Himself says that it’s impossible for anyone to ever know anything about Him, and I take that to include knowing if He exists or is real, or not. I might disagree with saying that all gods are imaginary. For example, would you say that my three forum gods @Revoltingest , @PopeADope and @Audie are purely imaginary?

Would you say that these gods are imaginary?
https://nypost.com/2001/03/26/baseballs-gods-to-drop-in-on-dubya/

 

[Jim]

Why should you be denouncing other people or their beliefs? Believe whatever you want to believe and let others do the same.

I took your question to be rhetorical. Was I wrong?

 

[blü 2]

Speaking only of the God of Abraham, it doesn’t matter to me if He exists or is real, or not. It looks to me like He Himself says that it’s impossible for anyone to ever know anything about Him, and I take that to include knowing if He exists or is real, or not. I might disagree with saying that all gods are imaginary. For example, would you say that my three forum gods @Revoltingest , @PopeADope and @Audie are purely imaginary?

Would you say that these gods are imaginary?
https://nypost.com/2001/03/26/baseballs-gods-to-drop-in-on-dubya/

I don't think of them as imaginary, but to answer your substantial question, I'd need the definition of a real god ─ the very thing there isn't.

 

[Spiderman]

Speaking only of the God of Abraham, it doesn’t matter to me if He exists or is real, or not. It looks to me like He Himself says that it’s impossible for anyone to ever know anything about Him, and I take that to include knowing if He exists or is real, or not. I might disagree with saying that all gods are imaginary. For example, would you say that my three forum gods @Revoltingest , @PopeADope and @Audie are purely imaginary?

Would you say that these gods are imaginary?
https://nypost.com/2001/03/26/baseballs-gods-to-drop-in-on-dubya/

I might be a Tulpa God created by your imagination.
Tulpa - Wikipedia

I have yet to win you over to Fascism, but rest assured, there is nothing in the doctrine, essence, soul, or nature of Fascism that is racist, violent, or anti-semetic.

Fascism was a form of Christianity where Christocentric leaders took severe measures to cleanse Italy and Spain of the Red, atheist, and communist errors that were weakening the nations to the point of bloody civil war, bad economy, and red revolution.

Fascism gave the demoralized motivation, gave the doubters faith, brought economic miracles, restored order, brought pride and patriotism to those who were ashamed of their country, and brought fourth charismatic nationalistic leadership, art, uniforms, parades, and propaganda that brought forth entertainment, joy, and hysterical euphoria, bringing about a love between a nation and its leader that resembles the love between Christ and his church, the love between a husband and his bride.

Then Hitler brought about a form of fascism that was hateful and racist, and forever was the reputation of fascism destroyed.

But it started out as the best thing for Italy , and saved Spain + Western Europe from Soviet conquest.

We should take the good fruits of fascism. Saying Fascism is violent and racist is as much a lie as saying "Democracy is violent and racist, for Democracy had white privilege and wars of aggression."

Fascism is the Religious remedy to atheist or Communist aggression, and the greatest boost to a nation's economy, spirituality, morale, unity, and fervor, and we can extract the benefits and filter out the errors.

That is your Fascist Messiah's food for thy thought today, and Fascist daily bread lesson for thee, my faithful disciple!

Check out the worldwide inspiration fascism was at first:

Now, can fascism be filtered out , so that all of the negative things, like wars of aggression, are condemnned by fascists, so that the miracles mussolini worked, could be worked, without any crimes against humanity, and the Nations experience the same economic growth, patriotism, and unity that Fascist Italy had, without aggressing on one another?

It can be a rhetorical question if you wish, but I'm certain that there is a hidden goldmine in fascism that politicians refuse to extract from, because of the ugly rubble that covers it. We need not throw out the baby with the bath-water.

From that small voice inside of me....AKA G O D