Religious Nonsense
- Thread starter StrangerInAStrangeLand
- Start date
- Status
just a thought regarding the original post
according to the OT, the new testament [NT] is operating under the second covenant with god which means the entire situation is redefined, and the relationships with god are therefore redefined (see: JER 31:27 - 31:37 KJV+). this is implied by the wording of JER and the acceptance of all people under god's law. the highlight of it is that the first covenant was broken (JER 31:32)
Given the tendencies of the religious fanatic to gravitate to a perfect deity claim, this causes the critical thinker to wonder
just thoughts to ponder, IMHO.
pretty fair search, strongs, etc
EDIT:
I rather think the Lakota have it right in that your faith (or religion) is entirely your own personal walk with whatever deity you choose, and no person can tell you that you're wrong. This would include those who choose not to believe in any deity. It's all their personal choice.
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster
LOL
I see a few problems with this, IMHO, Starting with the authors potential ignorance of the old testament [OT] and ending with the authors ignoring of the OT
according to the OT, the new testament [NT] is operating under the second covenant with god which means the entire situation is redefined, and the relationships with god are therefore redefined (see: JER 31:27 - 31:37 KJV+). this is implied by the wording of JER and the acceptance of all people under god's law. the highlight of it is that the first covenant was broken (JER 31:32)
Taking this into consideration then it is either blasphemous to ignore the word of god or it's just another mistake in the bible
Given the tendencies of the religious fanatic to gravitate to a perfect deity claim, this causes the critical thinker to wonder
just thoughts to ponder, IMHO.
if you are interested, you can get the KJV+ for free here: https://www.e-sword.net/
pretty fair search, strongs, etc
IMHO, this is similar to the religious wars against science in that it's usually the fanatic clinging to some dogmatic belief rather than the average believer. Of course, this can also be applied to political fanatics as well, I'm thinking.
EDIT:
ditto.
I rather think the Lakota have it right in that your faith (or religion) is entirely your own personal walk with whatever deity you choose, and no person can tell you that you're wrong. This would include those who choose not to believe in any deity. It's all their personal choice.
All hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster
LOL
It's the average believer, statistically - at least, in the Americas and the Muslim world. The appearance of reasonableness in the general population is from averaging in nonbelievers and compromising between rival beliefs.
They're not ok, actually. It's a problem.
Gawdzilla Sama
Valued Senior Member
Present!
Jews would disagree. And Jesus said in the NT that all the old laws still apply. Also the 10 commandments are old testament.
Last edited:
New International Version reads:
He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
New Living Translation (what our UMC church uses) instead says:
And then he told them, “Go into all the world and preach the Good News to everyone.
The difference really does come down to how we translate into English. The Greek has to do with κτίσει, an old form of a verb meaning to build. The Latin is "omni creaturae", with creaturae being "creation", derived from the future active participle of "creō", or so a quick survey of the internet explains, and here is the hook: creātūrae is the nominative and vocative plurals, as well as the genitive and dative singulars, of the feminine assertion of creātūrus. The tendency is toward future generations, but in the question of all creation, we would also need to psychoanalyze diverse ancient relationships 'twixt person, society, and religious belief.
To wit, the animals did not fall from Grace; there is no need to preach repentance, but communication of the Holy Spirit through the evangelist unto an animal is written into Christ's appeal; we should also note evangelical human intercession is not required, as certain animals in a manger at Bethlehem apparently had a clue they were witness to something special, and there are other examples in the story. How any one evangelist during any given period considered animals or not is its own bit of history known or lost, but underlying inquiry, in re preaching to animals, is constructed from contemporary and reactionary value assignment.
So, Jesus spoke something in Aramaic. That was passed down orally until "Mark" decided to write it down in Greek. Someone later translated that into Latin. And then, a thousand years later, King James had someone else translate that into English.
So, to find the most accurate text we should probably take the oldest version of Mark we can find and translate directly from it. Unfortunately, the oldest versions of Mark do not contain the passage in question.
So, to find the most accurate text we should probably take the oldest version of Mark we can find and translate directly from it. Unfortunately, the oldest versions of Mark do not contain the passage in question.
Please can you cite the scripture verses that suggest that certain animals had a clue that they were witness to something special?
I have read both Matthew's and Luke's accounts but can see nothing in those to suggest what you say.
But it was a while ago and I probably missed it.
Or it is in other scriptures?
So if you could expand on this aspect, that would be appreciated.
Thanks.
///
Very good point but the current issue is whether people believe what is in their version & whether they act accordingly.
<>
///
Which is related to the OP.
I am not criticizing or dismissing your post. I am glad for it. Simply clarifying.
<>
Good point, and thanks for stirring up the old spider's nest in my head
There is no argument about the old laws in what I posted. In point of fact, it's the old laws that are referenced that demonstrate the "second" covenant (also known as the "New" covenant). This is the chosen wording for most christians that I've talked to about this, yet it's actually the 5th covenant (of course, the Muslims consider the 5th covenant -the New covenant- to be with Mohammud rather than Jesus). The first four covenants ( the Noahic, GEN 9; the Abrahamic, GEN 12; the Mosaic, EXO 19-24; the Davidic, 2SAM 7) was with the descendants of the aforementioned and the people of the nation. The Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic are really extensions of the initial Royal Grant covenant and can be considered revisions of the original first covenant. addendums, if you will. (ignoring the Palestinian covenant -DEUT 30, 1-10- as it was more a land grant; note that the DEUT land grant also discusses the restoration of the nation of Isreal after it's scattering to the world for disobedience)
The last covenant, the New covenant (JER linked and quoted last post) is entirely different in that it opens the doors to all and not just those people of the nation, faith and heritage. It specifically combines both houses (Isreal and Judah) and accepts all other people as gods own people as well because of the fulfillment of the Law of Moses by Jesus. Here is a reference for those interested.
https://www.christianbook.com/the-m.../9780802411983/pd/411981?event=AFF&p=1011693&
Of course, like all dogma, it's contested by those who simply don't agree with it. Given that it's religion, this is typical and also the reason the Abrahamic faith has so many factions and still today fights amongst itself.
I agree that it's not OK and is a problem.
Of course, I think this about all "religions" because, IMHO, once a faith decides to codify rules for the sake of judgement, it is, by its nature, prejudiced against all who aren't part of the clique or faction of belief. This teaches superiority over others by it's forcing segregation based upon its rules for being a good [insert religious label].
of course, this may well be my personal bias because of my culture and how we view a faith and belief.
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
RainbowSingularity
Valued Senior Member
from the inception of the word "creature" to its scientific meaning of th etime, would be any human or animal that was not a christian.
demons, withces, hindu's muslims etc...
a "creature" would be a non christian entity, ghost, apirition etc etc...
... and blessing of boats which were endowed with a religion as a living entity etc...
?
to call your ship a creature would be an insult only a pirate could endure as sarcastic cynicism.
were a sailor to call their ship a "creature" would likely result in them being whipped or beaten
There is also this: Instead of going after the topic inquiry as "bigoted stupidity" in lieu of "religious nonsense", a more affirmative retort also awaited, to note that yes, the inquiry is, in fact, religious nonsense. Of course, that alternative is of a common form that pretty much anyone can imitate; and if we aren't muttering thanks to God that the inquiry wasn't so solipsistic as falsely asserting, for no apparent reason↗, that explicit disagreement is somehow in unexplained agreement, well, the other is a retort, a tldr best suited for responding to short posts, or else trying to skip out on the hook in the tldr one-two, the follow-up explaining in detail what is wrong with what one didn't read.
Yet, there is more also: It stands out that we have been considering the inquiry according to a particular explicit term, the invocation of the Gospel of Mark.
But the question is about theists: Do any theists preach to animals?
If we actually open our consideration to theists in general, instead of restricting ourselves to Christianity in particular, the answer is so unquestionably affirmative we can suggest that between the first familiar and twenty-first century videos explaining how to train the family dog to pray, the answer has never at any time been no.
Part of this, however, arises from constriction of perspectives leading to the inquiry itself. Start with a simplistic analogy in order to establish a particular point: Imagine a scientist, and let's make him otherwise a perfectly legitimate scientist. Otherwise? Well, today we might find him down at McDonald's, having a cup of coffee and a hashbrown, waiting for the church ladies to show up with their developmental care wards in tow, at which point he will start asking disrupted students to tell him stuff about God so he can tell them to their faces how wrong they are.
I know, it sounds cruel, doesn't it? Set aside the cruelty for a moment; anecdote from history: When I was a junior in high school, the family took a trip to Hawai'i. I think it was at Waikiki, there was a market just outside our hotel, and just outside the market was a crazy haole street preacher handing out Chick tracts. In this case, it was the hyperaggressive AIDS case, pricked by an infected needle last week while doing missionary work, and now the doctor has (gasp!) only six weeks to live. But, yeah, try talking to that guy; all he could do was howl about the end of the world and repenting.
Consider, then, that preacher is what preacher is; I can seek emotional solace in presuming him delusional, or I can, you know, not worry about it at all, but if "religion" is so pressing a problem, I can also try figuring out how to deal with the problem. It's one thing to address the strange as they preach, but this part where people go out of their way to seek the lowest common denominators of gutterborne delusional faith—in order to, what, feel better about themselves for thinking they're smarter than someone they've already identified as presumably unable to compete?—isn't really that much less unhealthy.
There is a joke I used to tell, about what we come to know as New Atheism, or a more general range I refer to as evangelical Atheism, and if these people read novels: "'It was the best of times, it was the worst of times'? Oh, come on, it can't be both!"
It really should be just a joke, and a silly one at that. Hell, it wasn't ever all that funny to begin with. Still, though, it shouldn't endure as an actual argument with over a decade's worth of value; that it finds perpetual market demand makes some sort of point.
If I want to treat, say, evangelical Christian scholar Mark Noll so simplistically as this atheistic pretense of discourse presumes, he would bury me. Should I so challenge Elaine Pagels, she would devour me. Karen Armstrong would slowly grind me to dust.
Comparatively:
• Two reasons two-bitting religious and theological discourse is so popular:
→ More substantial criticism requires greater labor and immersion in what one already disdains; i.e., it's easy enough to be fun or, at least, diverting.
→ The learning required for more substantial criticism presents arguable theses less superficially appealing or immediately rewarding; i.e., once one gets a clue, insistent balbutive fallacy is antithetical, antisocial, and generally dysfunctional.
→ The learning required for more substantial criticism presents arguable theses less superficially appealing or immediately rewarding; i.e., once one gets a clue, insistent balbutive fallacy is antithetical, antisocial, and generally dysfunctional.
It isn't that religious balbutive somehow fails to cause society any problems; it's a cancer on the species. Rather, deliberately failing to properly address the disease in order feel better about ourselves by mocking it and those who suffer its effects is actually worse than doing nothing. Prodding and agitating the malignance, compelling it to reinforce itself, fails to serve any purpose that isn't harmful.
It ought to be easy enough, for instance, to take down Marcussen's National Sunday Law (Harrisville: Mountain Missionary Press, 1983), or Nelson's The Antichrist (Middleton: CHJ Publishing, 1996). However, if the whole of refutation is or relies on asserting the nonexistence of God, one is missing the point; to the other, if the point of the refutation is to have a slappy-war of attrition with people one considers incompetent, well, that makes a point of its own. And for sport?
I have a note stashed aside↱, for instance, about Noll's description of transforming societal iterations of faith in the American eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002); my point is not so much to oppose, but to set aside the scrap until I can figure out what it means. I don't have to agree with the distinguished professor, but neither need I fight; we can easily predict Noll would find plenty to disdain when I set my political teeth into the critique, but it would be similarly easy to expect he might also notice when contemporary journalism discovers transforming definitions in American Christendom↱ that only validates the sort of note that gets scribbled into his introduction.
To the other, if the retort involves asking about God meddling in human affairs or tinkering with the weather, well, that would be a manner of going about it wrongly.
Anecdote: Once upon a time, I was completely wrecking myself in a 300-level history of Christianity course but, having once done a stint as a heavy metal Satanist in a Catholic high school, noted a journal article (Harvard Theological Review, v.84 n.2, April, 1991) I couldn't use for the paper I was working because it was the wrong subject. Fast forward a few years, and I'm in a bookstore, and I see this book, and because I did the stint as a heavy metal Satanist, I'm fascinated by the title. Oh, wait, something is familiar: Pagels? That article. So, the book: The Origin of Satan? Okay, and ... oh, hey, there's the article, "The Social History of Satan", right there in the table of contents.
It's like, if I could explain Boiled in Lead, and how it came to me as a joke in the back of a (different) book, but also what it brought me over time. The sad thing is to wonder how many just wouldn't understand the analogy. No, really, it's just one of those things. To the one, I'm talking about music. That band began a worldbeat period for me that changed the way I perceive music, much like Pagels' book led me to literary treasures teaching me about religion. It's because of that article I went on a theology kick that includes much of the canon I brought with me to Sciforums; the weird overlap is that while Yolen is an important person in the history of why I use femme avatars, Yolen's kid's drummer is part of the reason I followed up on a joke about Sufi drumming that went alongside the one about the soundtrack for the book.
I guess I've been at this for a while; I can remember when the naïveté of some preachers was a question of not understanding the internet, as such. These days it looks more like mental illness.
Follow the bouncing ball:
• [Preacher] is wrong. Therefore we should base subsequent arguments about religion on [Preacher] as if [Preacher] is credible.
The topic question is a reactionary box projected large; one of the weird things about this manner of argument is that it relies on what it disagrees with:
• [Argument] about [subject] is wrong; therefore all future consideration of [subject] must be based on this wrong [argument].
What would the world would look like if the moronic street preacher in Hawaii, or that one crooked televangelist I would imitate for laughs, had such power to define Christendom? It is impossible to account for all the things I never would have learned because I never would have noticed.
Religion is nonsense because evidence from science shows that humans are just very complex biological machines.
We are really no different than other animals when it comes to biology and our brain works the same way as the other primates.
Many people think we have a soul, a spirit or a personality but I think that's a myth made up by religious people in order to control people and tell them what to do and how to behave.
The afterlife is also a myth in my opinion. There is clearly no afterlife because all we really are is animals. Will a chimp or a gorilla go to heaven when he/she dies? If your answer no then why should humans be any different?
Throughout history religious beliefs and behaviors have been the source of incredible human suffering and misery and I think that's because religion is not actually true but is based on ancient myths and lies.
We are really no different than other animals when it comes to biology and our brain works the same way as the other primates.
Many people think we have a soul, a spirit or a personality but I think that's a myth made up by religious people in order to control people and tell them what to do and how to behave.
The afterlife is also a myth in my opinion. There is clearly no afterlife because all we really are is animals. Will a chimp or a gorilla go to heaven when he/she dies? If your answer no then why should humans be any different?
Throughout history religious beliefs and behaviors have been the source of incredible human suffering and misery and I think that's because religion is not actually true but is based on ancient myths and lies.
- Status