# Question for the true believers.



## jiminbogart (Mar 24, 2021)

I'm reading a book written by Penn Jillette(Penn & Teller) who is an outspoken atheist.

In his book he has a question he asks theists.

"If God demanded that you kill your children, would you kill them?"

His take away that if you would not kill your children, you are an atheist. 

Would you kill your children if God demanded that you do?


----------



## The Original Rooster (Mar 24, 2021)

No.
If something claiming it was God demanded child sacrifice, the demand itself would prove that it is not God. Christ was the final sacrifice.
Now in the time of the old testament, that's another story. Abraham's story is well known.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2021)

Isn't God and Jesus the same?
Or If separate and god is the father is he more powerful  and has more clout?
What if the order came from the head honcho?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 24, 2021)

jiminbogart said:


> I'm reading a book written by Penn Jillette(Penn & Teller) who is an outspoken atheist.
> 
> In his book he has a question he asks theists.
> 
> ...


Not sure I agree with his take away.
You could refuse to kill your children but still believe in God. 
They would just be defying God which happens most every day.
Then the question becomes - would they be forgiven for their defiance?


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 24, 2021)

Are my children Atheists in this hypothetical?


----------



## dixiecutter (Mar 24, 2021)

No. I would be a disobedient believer.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Are my children Atheists in this hypothetical?


Children would be commanded to kill their parents for the sake of this conversation.

Ps, Nice to "see" you again Gem. Hope all has been well with you and yours.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 24, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Children would be commanded to kill their parents for the sake of this conversation.
> 
> Ps, Nice to "see" you again Gem. Hope all has been well with you and yours.


Thanks BH. All is well here and I hope the same your way.

My answer to the question "Would you kill your children if God demanded that you do?" is yes, if God determined that I would. 
No, if God determined that I wouldn't.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 24, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Thanks BH. All is well here and I hope the same your way.
> 
> My answer to the question "Would you kill your children if God demanded that you do?" is yes, if God determined that I would.
> No, if God determined that I wouldn't.


Thank you Gem
I knew your answer . Nobody in here is more loyal.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 25, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Thanks BH. All is well here and I hope the same your way.
> 
> My answer to the question "Would you kill your children if God demanded that you do?" is yes, if God determined that I would.
> No, if God determined that I wouldn't.


Thats ^ a pretty bullet proof (no pun intended) response.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 25, 2021)

No. If those voices get in my head, I’m getting to a doctor.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2021)

jiminbogart said:


> I'm reading a book written by Penn Jillette(Penn & Teller) who is an outspoken atheist.
> 
> In his book he has a question he asks theists.
> 
> ...



Just a couple of points.

You know, I've got a few problems with the wording of the OP, in that it equates "true believers" with killing their own children.  It's akin to asking, "Have you beat your wife today?"
It's a 'gotcha' question in which there's no right answer.   I try to avoid entertaining such non-sense as the intent of any such question, no matter who raises it, is to paint those queried in a bad light.  As such, these types of questions universally reveal nothing, other than the type character possessed by the person who poses the question.

I would only point out to Mr. Jillette that if he want's to lay all the children of  "true believers" killed by "true believers" at God's feet, then it's only rational using the same criteria to lay all the other's killed EVERY. SINGLE. DAY at the feat of unbelief. 

Somehow, I don't think he would accept that, and that's about as far as I care to become involved in this chicanery.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Not sure I agree with his take away.
> You could refuse to kill your children but still believe in God.
> They would just be defying God which happens most every day.
> Then the question becomes - would they be forgiven for their defiance?



You keep up this line of rational thinking, you're gonna destroy the strawman scenario.


----------



## jiminbogart (Mar 25, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just a couple of points.
> 
> You know, I've got a few problems with the wording of the OP, in that it equates "true believers" with killing their own children.  It's akin to asking, "Have you beat your wife today?"
> It's a 'gotcha' question in which there's no right answer.   I try to avoid entertaining such non-sense as the intent of any such question, no matter who raises it, is to paint those queried in a bad light.  As such, these types of questions universally reveal nothing, other than the type character possessed by the person who poses the question.
> ...




I just used "true believers" as a synonym for theist. I didn't want to limit the question to folks of one religion. 

As far as "a gotcha question", "non-sense", questioning character, "chicanery", ect, it was simply a question that I thought was interesting.


----------



## jollyroger (Mar 25, 2021)

I dont think it was a bad question, it certainly is an extreme hypothetical.

One is either unfailing in their belief in their god or they are not. 

It is binary thinking, and that is why I decided long ago that I will not put myself into a position such as that because the world around me--reality-- does not operate in binary.

I remain agnostic to it all and relish the fact that I
 will never know, I love the mystery.

Many religions and their devotees have a lot of the burden when it comes to proof of their devotion.

No, I would not kill my children unless by not doing so they would be made to suffer eternally unimaginable horrors and torture if I did not.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 25, 2021)

Jim, did Penn attempt to justify his "take away"?


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 25, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just a couple of points.
> 
> You know, I've got a few problems with the wording of the OP, in that it equates "true believers" with killing their own children.  It's akin to asking, "Have you beat your wife today?"
> It's a 'gotcha' question in which there's no right answer.   I try to avoid entertaining such non-sense as the intent of any such question, no matter who raises it, is to paint those queried in a bad light.  As such, these types of questions universally reveal nothing, other than the type character possessed by the person who poses the question.
> ...


Are you struggling with this?


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 25, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You keep up this line of rational thinking, you're gonna destroy the strawman scenario.


This was an easy one. Didnt require much thinking


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Are you struggling with this?



Does your hubris come naturally?


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 25, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Does your hubris come naturally?


Is that akin to asking, "Have you beat your wife today?"


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 25, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Just a couple of points.
> 
> You know, I've got a few problems with the wording of the OP, in that it equates "true believers" with killing their own children


I only read it to aim at those that are committed and not those that only attend Easter and Christmas. But that’s just how I took it. Kind of how committed are you?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Is that akin to asking, "Have you beat your wife today?"



Is this



> Are you struggling with this?


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 25, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I only read it to aim at those that are committed and not those that only attend Easter and Christmas. But that’s just how I took it. Kind of how committed are you?



Walt pegged it.  It kinda starts on the wrong foot and deteriorates from there.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 26, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Is this


No. Do I need to explain the difference to you?


----------



## Israel (Mar 26, 2021)

You ever hear the story about the little boy whose brother was dying and his blood could help save him? The boy agreed when he was told his brother would live if he gave his blood. But the boy had a question.

"Will it hurt?" he asked.

"Will what hurt?" replied the doctor.

"When I die" answered the boy thinking he was agreeing to the draining of all his blood. And then the doctor set him straight about only giving "some".

To the boy his agreement to death was sure but willing. The "knowing ones" intent was that neither should die.

It is not whether God could, might, or would ask any man to put _his own_ children (and mother, father, wife, brothers, and sisters) to death, He's already made that quite clear through Jesus Christ.

What may not appear a dumb idol is not known to be so until it is resolved to the man in seeing their place in the Lord's hands alone for His disposition. And the _one dying to them in doing so _becomes quite aware of the Author of life that is the only sustaining.


Even to any desire that your own...(especially)...should think well of you...is just a dumb idol.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 26, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> No. Do I need to explain the difference to you?



Please do.  Dazzle me with your intelligence.  I need some Friday dazzle, because so far the coffee isn't cutting it.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 26, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> I only read it to aim at those that are committed and not those that only attend Easter and Christmas. But that’s just how I took it. Kind of how committed are you?



I'm hesitant to follow this false flag of a question because it's totally irrational to an unbeliever and extremely difficult for even most devout believers to wrestle with, but what-the-heck, it's Friday and it's slow.

From a believers standpoint, if one totally trust God, and I emphasize "TOTALLY', then one would *trust *that God, regardless of whether I understand His motives or not, has the best interest of not only me, my son, annnnd mankind at heart.  The incident with Abraham and Isaac didn't occur in a vacuum.  I'm not going to go over it all, but it's there for anyone who cares to read it.  There was a trust built on history, between God and Abraham, the depths of which I don't know, but apparently it was strong enough that Abraham trusted God enough to do it.  

This is where the rub is in Jillette's conclusion:



> that if you would not kill your children, you are an atheist



There's a lot of other rational conclusions one could come to other than that one dependent on the belief of the 'true believer'.  In fact there are an infinite number of other rational conclusions one could reach.  It could be as absurd as the 'true believer' believes that by disobeying God, he's really fulfilling God's will, or that God is a butterfly and that if he kills his child God will turn into a giant Dragonfly and eat him.  Neither of which would make the 'true believer' an atheist.  He would still fill the definition of a theist, because he still believes in God.  Y'all correct me if I'm wrong on this.   

Stepping from the preposterous, back into reality and the context of mainstream Christian belief, Jillette's conclusion is based on the misconception that belief is an 'all or nothing' proposition.  In my personal experience, (and I think most people, believers and non-believers would agree with me)  trust/belief exists along a spectrum and it's not static.  I can have a strong belief today and then have something happen that can either diminish or increase my belief; neither of which makes me an atheist.   Jillette, for all the 'deep thinking' he auditions knows this, or he should have.  Why? Because it's not exclusive to Christianity or even theism.  It's basic human nature.  If I'm an atheist, and I see a talking donkey or a burning bush speaking to me, it would alter the amount of trust I had in my belief in atheism.  It would either increase it or decrease it to some degree.   I may even do what the donkey/bush commanded, but that doesn't make me a 'true believer'.  I very well could have followed the commands out of nothing but a sense of curiosity.  Anyway, that's about as far as I care to go on this today.  My coffee is kicking in, and I need to get moving.  Y'all have a good day.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 26, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Walt pegged it.  It kinda starts on the wrong foot and deteriorates from there.


I was merely looking at the many labels Christians have - true believer, truly saved, etc.

I assume someone coming to two services a year for a hot dog and an  Easter egg wasn’t what the OP was referring to. Those folks can’t even die out to their own flesh to be faithful enough to support the church in attendance. Surely they’re not going to do something as extreme as the OP questioned.

But I agree and get the point.


----------



## Danuwoa (Mar 26, 2021)

I love these kind of gotcha questions.  Jesus rendered this out of the realm of possibility.  What else you got?

I know though that I’ll get “But what if...”. The answer is no.  And while I think Penn is a decent guy he does t know what he’s talking about.  Christians willfully sin every single day.  That doesn’t make them atheists.  Peter himself, the man Jesus called his “rock” denied Jesus three times when it counted most.  David, a man God called a man after his own heart, had his best friend killed so that he could have his wife.  We all have sin and evil in us despite being Christians.  At some point every single one of us is a hypocrite because we are sinners.  Penn didn’t think about this very much.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 26, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm hesitant to follow this false flag of a question because it's totally irrational to an unbeliever and extremely difficult for even most devout believers to wrestle with, but what-the-heck, it's Friday and it's slow.
> 
> From a believers standpoint, if one totally trust God, and I emphasize "TOTALLY', then one would *trust *that God, regardless of whether I understand His motives or not, has the best interest of not only me, my son, annnnd mankind at heart.  The incident with Abraham and Isaac didn't occur in a vacuum.  I'm not going to go over it all, but it's there for anyone who cares to read it.  There was a trust built on history, between God and Abraham, the depths of which I don't know, but apparently it was strong enough that Abraham trusted God enough to do it.
> 
> ...





> He would still fill the definition of a theist, because he still believes in God.


You are correct. As is Danuwoa below. Atheism is strictly and only a matter of belief or disbelief in the existence of a god or gods. Obedience or disobedience matters not.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 26, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> I love these kind of gotcha questions.  Jesus rendered this out of the realm of possibility.  What else you got?
> 
> I know though that I’ll get “But what if...”. The answer is no.  And while I think Penn is a decent guy he does t know what he’s talking about.  Christians willfully sin every single day.  That doesn’t make them atheists.  Peter himself, the man Jesus called his “rock” denied Jesus three times when it counted most.  David, a man God called a man after his own heart, had his best friend killed so that he could have his wife.  We all have sin and evil in us despite being Christians.  At some point every single one of us is a hypocrite because we are sinners.  Penn didn’t think about this very much.





> Penn didn’t think about this very much.


Well look at that.
We agree on something.
Its possible we just experienced a miracle.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 27, 2021)

jiminbogart said:


> I'm reading a book written by Penn Jillette(Penn & Teller) who is an outspoken atheist.
> 
> In his book he has a question he asks theists.
> 
> ...


Jim, does Penn explain his "take away"(if you would not kill your children, you are an atheist)? I would posit that he is more likely right than wrong.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> I love these kind of gotcha questions.  Jesus rendered this out of the realm of possibility.  What else you got?
> 
> I know though that I’ll get “But what if...”. The answer is no.  And while I think Penn is a decent guy he does t know what he’s talking about.  Christians willfully sin every single day.  That doesn’t make them atheists.  Peter himself, the man Jesus called his “rock” denied Jesus three times when it counted most.  David, a man God called a man after his own heart, had his best friend killed so that he could have his wife.  We all have sin and evil in us despite being Christians.  At some point every single one of us is a hypocrite because we are sinners.  Penn didn’t think about this very much.


The difference in Penn's question seems to be that god would contact "you" directly. "You" wouldn't read about it in a religious book and have to interpret what god wanted or if god was really asking you or have to put yourself in a What would I Do if I were Abraham type scenario. This would be a direct request from god to a person like burning bush and booming voice magnitude. 
"THIS IS THE LORD THY GOD AND I AM COMMANDING YOU TO KILL YOUR CHILDREN RIGHT NOW"
Do you say " no thanks, I sin every day so go ask someone else. I am still going to heaven regardless because of what Jesus said"?
Or as I think Penn means it that most people wouldn't believe it was god and/or do not have enough faith that god is in fact righteous, has a reason that supersedes our own human comprehension and wouldn't put their money where their mouth is when the time came.


----------



## Danuwoa (Mar 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> The difference in Penn's question seems to be that god would contact "you" directly. "You" wouldn't read about it in a religious book and have to interpret what god wanted or if god was really asking you or have to put yourself in a What would I Do if I were Abraham type scenario. This would be a direct request from god to a person like burning bush and booming voice magnitude.
> "THIS IS THE LORD THY GOD AND I AM COMMANDING YOU TO KILL YOUR CHILDREN RIGHT NOW"
> Do you say " no thanks, I sin every day so go ask someone else. I am still going to heaven regardless because of what Jesus said"?
> Or as I think Penn means it that most people wouldn't believe it was god and/or do not have enough faith that god is in fact righteous, has a reason that supersedes our own human comprehension and wouldn't put their money where their mouth is when the time came.


The words “ I think Penn means” are doing some heavy lifting there.


----------



## Israel (Mar 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Or as I think Penn means it that most people wouldn't believe it was god and/or do not have enough faith that god is in fact righteous, has a reason that supersedes our own human comprehension and wouldn't put their money where their mouth is when the time came.




and/or do not have enough faith that god is in fact righteous, has a reason that supersedes our own human comprehension and wouldn't put their money where their mouth is when the time came.


Whether Penn thinks this or not, the fact that another man might think it is quite enough.


----------



## jollyroger (Mar 27, 2021)

Therein lies the problem though, because of the multitudinous ways in which God speaks to people.

Some see signs, some claim to hear His voice directly.

Would you know it's a message from God, or are you bordering on psychosis?

For many, the doubts will start to creep in and therefore the cracks in your faith will begin to show.

It is an absolutism, you either will or you won't unfailingly do this act for the Lord because anything else. Anything. Would reveal your doubts and you would not be a true believer.

You may go through with the act, but few would know they made the right choice.

Edit: I remember hearing about cases like this, One where a mother ended the lives of her children because God told her to do it. How would we know? From our perspective she is nuts and deserves to be committed for such an atrocious act. But what if...


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 27, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> The words “ I think Penn means” are doing some heavy lifting there.


We don't have much to go on and I don't have the book.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 27, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> It is an absolutism, you either will or you won't unfailingly do this act for the Lord because anything else. Anything. Would reveal your doubts and you would not be a true believer.


Or a true believer may also be an Atheist from time to time.


----------



## jollyroger (Mar 27, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Or a true believer may also be an Atheist from time to time.


----------



## Israel (Mar 27, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> Therein lies the problem though, because of the multitudinous ways in which God speaks to people.
> 
> Some see signs, some claim to hear His voice directly.
> 
> ...



Bullet (to my mind) hews well by bringing up the matter of money and mouth. The man might not know he is writing checks with his mouth that _he thinks of his own _he can make good. "Who's got the goods" is a relentless question of men when any claim is made. And let's face it...there's much to be garnered if one can convince others by whatever means to believe their claims.

"This detergent will really make your clothes sparkling clean".

But God? God already knows what each man may have...and what each "will do". To Him...there is no future to wait upon for discovery. What _man does_...is clear. And the man who thinks he "will do" other than _as he does _is a candidate for a kind, or rude, awakening.

(And perhaps even an atheist might concede that for "a" god to be God...he would know the true substance of everything...even to thoughts and intents...for he would not only be "above them all" for seeing...but in truth even the origin of all we perceive as being...and allowing).

And, a man may be allowed (for whatever time) to even think he knows what _he will do _in any given situation. He may be _even allowed _to say it.

The folly of the believer is often found no less the folly of any other "If I _really knew_ what was right...(in any situation) I would do it"

No...you _will do _what you _will do _as allowed.

Do you know how full morgues have been of those who have said "Honey, I'll be home by 8, I promise".

Neither do I.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2021)

Israel said:


> Bullet (to my mind) hews well by bringing up the matter of money and mouth. The man might not know he is writing checks with his mouth that _he thinks of his own _he can make good. "Who's got the goods" is a relentless question of men when any claim is made. And let's face it...there's much to be garnered if one can convince others by whatever means to believe their claims.
> 
> "This detergent will really make your clothes sparkling clean".
> 
> ...


I can agree with much of that.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> The words “ I think Penn means” are doing some heavy lifting there.


I agree. Insight requires a strong back, , broad shoulders and open mind.


----------



## Danuwoa (Mar 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I agree. Insight requires a strong back, , broad shoulders and open mind.


Open mind.?. That cracks me up every time I see it posted.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> Open mind.?. That cracks me up every time I see it posted.


Foreign concepts are funny to those who don't possess them. You'll get better.


----------



## Danuwoa (Mar 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Foreign concepts are funny to those who don't possess them. You'll get better.


I doubt it.  You are open to things you like and closed to things you don’t just like every other person.  Don’t kid yourself.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> I doubt it.  You are open to things you like and closed to things you don’t just like every other person.  Don’t kid yourself.


I research both sides and use the information gathered to form an opinion on which is a more likely than not outcome based off evidence which is backed up by fact and the very best information known at the time.
If you want to give examples of your assertions about what you are assuming I do regarding a specific subject I can give a more specific answer.


----------



## Danuwoa (Mar 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> I research both sides and use the information gathered to form an opinion on which is a more likely than not outcome based off evidence which is backed up by fact and the very best information known at the time.
> If you want to give examples of your assertions about what you are assuming I do regarding a specific subject I can give a more specific answer.


?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 27, 2021)

Danuwoa said:


> ?


That is spot on with what the available evidence pointed to.


----------



## Danuwoa (Mar 27, 2021)

bullethead said:


> That is spot on with what the available evidence pointed to.


Don’t take yourself so seriously.


----------



## Israel (Mar 29, 2021)

Is not (or, at at least one of them ) the basic proposition(s) of what is commonly called christianity (and, no less, of Hebrews) that man is created by God, and most specifically of all creation in such form as to be uniquely made to relate to Him? "Like" Him in such a way that differentiates Him from all other creatures _and things _by_, and_ with, some capacity to know Him?

And do not both hold that an influence (and occasion_) of corruption _took place to so interrupt this circuit of knowing, and that apart from some intervention toward restoration, such knowing is all but lost?

The _depth_ of such disconnect seems what is most often present in all our presumptions of argument (believers even, or especially, among themselves) which no less carry over to any and all interactions and attempts at relating to any who either identify themselves or are considered outside whatever is comprised of the term "believer".

Of whatever may form an ideal in the mind of each (both so called believer and so called unbeliever) there is either some agreement that, among men...something is (at least) somewhat amiss, or this most basic point is ignored, denied, or overlooked for whatever purpose.

The believer (if I am allowed to speak as one and in some way "for him") would most likely contend it is all a result of _original disconnect _(with God, or from Him) that then influences all other relationship...affecting in noticeable particularity men's relations to one another. Resulting manifestly in hostilities and (if one can receive it)...some perversion of relationship.

Even the staunchest unbeliever in argument, and by it, concedes to this. He may be loathe to say "No, everything is perfect as it is" for in any contention that man is first and foremost rational and to eschew any form he perceives as superstition...cannot account then for the existence of such (to his mind) irrationality found in what he contends against. The "god belief" in some of "man".

He might be disposed to "Man is rational (and should be...above all)..._except for the irrational ones." _How such is accounted for by the so called rational ones, whose position in opposition is the de facto _decrying of a defect.._.is interesting.

Ignorance? Can it be educated...out? All believers have a deficit of education?
Lack of intellect? Just too incapable of rational thought?
Emotional trauma? They suffer a traumatic mental _illness_?
Inability to reason? (where does the presumption that reason exists...even come from?)
and on and on.

Whence then the introduction of this (to the "unbeliever") defect of thought process into what (to him) as man...is assigned rationality? Regardless of position both men (believer and unbeliever) find something among men of some need of dispelling. In the extreme both might say "Your position is the great fault disrupting man"...easily seen in the oft repeated and recently posted quote:

“With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”

In other words...the worst of all behavior, that is, for "good people" takes a presumptive "God belief" that is equated to religion. And even the staunchest of believers will not deny many _apparent theists _in the seeming service of their religions have sanctioned atrocities or such as might be termed "poor relationship skills" by things like beheadings. That is...if we _are even allowed _to judge among them...

I would posit the _considerate believer _is not (if he believes man_ is to be_ recovered from defect) unaware that of all such justifications...what could be higher and most immune to accusation (to an _own mind_) than "service to God"? Really what is loftier in self justification?

The spectrum runs (at least among believers I assume) from the mild chuckle to "What, are you freakin' kidding me?" at the term "good people" in that quote. Not only is there the presumption of ability to rightly judge of what "good people" appear as, but also that such might even exist. And of course...if there be "good people" by distinction...there must be some other against which they are measured..."normal people"? "Bad people"? And then, of course...what people...or set thereof...(a simple majority?) get to decide where any fall on the spectrum? Tell me then, if you are able....where would the "majority" place themselves? Good, normal (average?)...evil?

There's another quote I have found too useful to succor my own sense (am I the only one who has a precious "own sense"?) of superiority:

"The problem with the average man is he does not believe himself average"

Who gets to "utter such"?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2021)

Israel said:


> Is not (or, at at least one of them ) the basic proposition(s) of what is commonly called christianity (and, no less, of Hebrews) that man is created by God, and most specifically of all creation in such form as to be uniquely made to relate to Him? "Like" Him in such a way that differentiates Him from all other creatures _and things _by_, and_ with, some capacity to know Him?
> 
> And do not both hold that an influence (and occasion_) of corruption _took place to so interrupt this circuit of knowing, and that apart from some intervention toward restoration, such knowing is all but lost?
> 
> ...


Is that a Yes or a No as to whether or not you would kill your children if god commanded you to do so?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 29, 2021)

gemcgrew said:


> Or a true believer may also be an Atheist from time to time.


Yup. By definition you’re an atheist to every god you lack a belief in. True atheist just took it one God further. Hey new term - true atheist ????


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 29, 2021)

Spotlite said:


> Yup. By definition you’re an atheist to every god you lack a belief in. True atheist just took it one God further. Hey new term - true atheist ????



Noooooo.... Its already complicated enough -

_Antitheists_ (atheists who actively oppose religion and work toward a world without it)
_Accommodationists_ (atheists who emphasize the common ground between the religious and nonreligious rather than the differences)
_Agnostics_ (people who emphasize their uncertainty about the question of God’s existence and often claim that it’s unknowable)
_Humanists_ (people who focus on how to live a good human life in a natural universe)
_Religious atheists_ (including many Buddhists, Hindus, Unitarians, and Jains who keep their religious identities and philosophies without bothering any gods)
_Freethinkers_ (people who form their opinions about the universe without the undue influence of religious authority)
_Unaffiliated_ or _“None”_ (they’re not religious, but generally not interested in any label at all, thank you very much)


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 29, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Noooooo.... Its already complicated enough -
> 
> _Antitheists_ (atheists who actively oppose religion and work toward a world without it)
> _Accommodationists_ (atheists who emphasize the common ground between the religious and nonreligious rather than the differences)
> ...


? ?


----------



## jollyroger (Mar 29, 2021)

I like the concept of religious atheist from your list, Walt.

I retain an agnostic perspective but I admire the Christ figure from the Bible.

I believe there is a term called _Christ Consciousness_, where one lives by the teachings of Christ and devotes themselves to living up to His standards.

Maybe that's the inverse of religious atheist.

Labels labels everywhere, our species loves to label and categorize ?

You can follow the wisdom of Christ without needing to belong to Christianity.

At least that is how I understand it, I could be wrong.

I retain the traditions of Catholicism, but I do not pray to God.

I celebrate Christmas, Easter, give my children Saint names, etc.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> I like the concept of religious atheist from your list, Walt.
> 
> I retain an agnostic perspective but I admire the Christ figure from the Bible.
> 
> ...


Didnt anyone live by such standards before the stories in the NT were written?


----------



## jollyroger (Mar 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Didnt anyone live by such standards before the stories in the NT were written?


Good question.

Part of the reason I'm inclined to believe Christ is just a character in this "handbook" called the Bible rather than a real person.

You could interchange Jesus for the much older Buddha (also questionably real) and come up with the same principles.

It's the same more or less, the characters are just "re-themed" to fit a certain time and culture.

Just my take on it.

Edit: I believe these principles are much older and ingrained than we could ever imagine, it's just that what information we have available is, well, the only information we have available.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 29, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> I like the concept of religious atheist from your list, Walt.
> 
> I retain an agnostic perspective but I admire the Christ figure from the Bible.
> 
> ...





> Labels labels everywhere, our species loves to label and categorize ?


Yeah I hate them. I think I may be a combination of most all them so not sure what label that would be. I guess I most identify with Agnostic if I have to choose just one.
I'm probably the furthest away from Antitheist. I dont have a problem with religion itself however I do think organized religion has some very toxic qualities and has probably polluted the whole shebang.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 29, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Didnt anyone live by such standards before the stories in the NT were written?


The 10 Commandments for example.
Half of them are just "rules" that have existed since man lived in groups in an attempt to make a semi-peaceful group that worked together for survival reasons.


----------



## bullethead (Mar 29, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> Good question.
> 
> Part of the reason I'm inclined to believe Christ is just a character in this "handbook" called the Bible rather than a real person.
> 
> ...


Lots of borrowed stories from other cultures in the Bible that were changed to fit.


----------



## jollyroger (Mar 30, 2021)

bullethead said:


> Didnt anyone live by such standards before the stories in the NT were written?


I like your question, and it's made me think about another one.

_When_ did humans begin living to the standards outlined in the Bible?

The far more ancient code of Hamurabi comes to mind, but can we go even further back?

We have discovered sites that pre-date Babylonian society that show evidence of cultural cooperation, namely Gobekli Tepi.

But I still want to go even further back, could it have something to do with our rise to higher consciousness?

I guess one would have to subscribe to the theory of evolution in order to think we were anything but _homo sapien sapien_ in our current form.

Evolutionary theory has it's share of issues, but it's  still pretty solid regardless.

Did morals arise alongside consciousness?

Did it appear when we became aware of ourselves?

Did it arise out of a need for resources?

Did we figure out that we can take down a wooly mammoth better, and feed more people easier, if we work together than if we try and fight each other?


----------



## bullethead (Mar 30, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> I like your question, and it's made me think about another one.
> 
> _When_ did humans begin living to the standards outlined in the Bible?
> 
> ...


Very few humans live to the standards set forth by religious figures. Those figures are there for an example, hope, an idol. In reality when push comes to shove "we" are all animals and will do whatever that we feel necessary at the time regardless of some "super version of us" as told in many religious tales.
What you question above is a great example of why morals are an ever adapting set of personal beliefs which are guided by many influential factors. We were not poofed here with a set of ingrained knowledge of right and wrong, good or bad. Those things evolved over time from pre-human ancestors and we built upon them as we went. All social animals have rules and pecking orders.


----------



## j_seph (Mar 30, 2021)

jiminbogart said:


> I'm reading a book written by Penn Jillette(Penn & Teller) who is an outspoken atheist.
> 
> In his book he has a question he asks theists.
> 
> ...




It comes to mind on this, those that do not believe, that teach their children God does not exist. Without the hope that their children one day see the light then their children being raised the same. By ones disbelief alone how many of their children and their childrens children have they already killed? They say they would not sacrifice their child yet they already are and have sacrificed them.


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 30, 2021)

j_seph said:


> It comes to mind on this, those that do not believe, that teach their children God does not exist. Without the hope that their children one day see the light then their children being raised the same. By ones disbelief alone how many of their children and their childrens children have they already killed? They say they would not sacrifice their child yet they already are and have sacrificed them.


I get what you’re saying but a counter to that can be from the non believers view that to participate in “religion” would be sacrificing their children - the light to see is to use reason and logic and stop believing in fairytales.

The reason I say that is because I’ve heard it from my cousin so this may not represent every non-believer.

For the record THAT’S ^^^^my stance on anything that someone says they were born “this way”. Outside of something physical, it’s the influence from the way you’re raised - just my opinion.


----------



## jollyroger (Mar 30, 2021)

There is also the aspect that knowledge is forbidden.

This notion is not only in the OT, but in many other mythos that predate it.

Prometheus stealing the secret of fire (knowledge) from the gods comes to mind.

If one corporation (religion) holds the patent on knowledge, and preaches that such knowledge is forbidden and counter to God's will, then who is really at the controls?

I dont outright dismiss the Bible, in fact I think the answers are hidden inside of it if one knows where to look, we are just translating it incorrectly; or rather egotistically.

We scoff at the silly beliefs of the ancients and the pantheon of gods they used to make sense of the universe and creation, but is not the Bible just another iteration of this?


----------



## Spotlite (Mar 30, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> There is also the aspect that knowledge is forbidden.
> 
> This notion is not only in the OT, but in many other mythos that predate it.
> 
> ...


Depends on which side of the fence you’re on. It’s both “believed” yes and no.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 30, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Yeah I hate them. I think I may be a combination of most all them so not sure what label that would be. I guess I most identify with Agnostic if I have to choose just one.
> I'm probably the furthest away from Antitheist. I dont have a problem with religion itself however I do think organized religion has some very toxic qualities and has probably polluted the whole shebang.



Sign, sign
Everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery
Breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that
Can't you read the sign?


----------



## jollyroger (Mar 30, 2021)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Sign, sign
> Everywhere a sign
> Blockin' out the scenery
> Breakin' my mind
> ...


Tesla did it better than 5 Man


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 30, 2021)

j_seph said:


> It comes to mind on this, those that do not believe, that teach their children God does not exist. Without the hope that their children one day see the light then their children being raised the same. By ones disbelief alone how many of their children and their childrens children have they already killed? They say they would not sacrifice their child yet they already are and have sacrificed them.


Meh...
Parents who dont believe have raised kids who have become believers later in life.
Parents who do believe have raised kids who have become nonbelievers later in life.
Darndest thing about kids is at some point in life they use their own brain regardless of what you teach them.
Hence the phrase we have all heard before..... I didnt raise you/him/her like that!
And lets not forget the nonbeliever parents who allow their kid(s) to go to church etc. with their believer friends.


----------



## WaltL1 (Mar 30, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> Tesla did it better than 5 Man


Bite your tongue!


----------



## j_seph (Mar 30, 2021)

WaltL1 said:


> Meh...
> Parents who dont believe have raised kids who have become believers later in life.
> Parents who do believe have raised kids who have become nonbelievers later in life.
> Darndest thing about kids is at some point in life they use their own brain regardless of what you teach them.
> ...


I love it when those last kids you mentioned discover the truth and go home saved, Amen


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Mar 30, 2021)

jollyroger said:


> Tesla did it better than 5 Man



Whelp. There went your credibility.


----------

