Atheism to be taught in RE..

[stretched]

Yo c20,

You are not judging are you? A honest Christian would know not to judge. You also now seem to know Tiassa and his nature intimately. Not cool.

 

[MarcAC]

Are you familiar with the theological concept that one of the few limitations of God is that It cannot be something that is mutually exclusive to itself? A classic rhetorical example is that God cannot make a "square circle" because the two definitions necessarily contradict one another. Another classic example is whether God can make a stone too heavy for God to lift.

These are not limitations. If one knew of a way possible to do these then they may be considered limitations. A limit is defined by a comparison right?

Your personal belief is your personal belief, but it makes communication rather quite difficult when you randomly assign definitions to words.

It may be difficult, yes. But some things (word meanings) have to be assumed as rather obvious, and thus when one employs certain methods of communication one would expect that some other meaning may be intended (unless of course one just wants to go off into some random rant). For example: You finish playing a video game with your wife, you won, she says; "I hate you." What does hate mean? Will you then request a divorce?

Hinduism is a theistic assertion. You can call it infidel, pagan, false, whatever. But the one thing it is not is an atheistic assertion. Hinduism is just as atheistic as Christianity.

I hope you note the content and nature of your two statements, but yes, I see your attempted point. I will not be a difficult one today.

I wouldn't know where to begin with that one.

Oh it seems you do... Yes, that does suggest a great degree of dogmatism, but as is seen in the examples just above (quoted and stated), word meanings may be suspended to facilitate some form of communication.

No, it would imply egocentrism founded on an exceptionally limited sense of personal vision.

Any supporting comments? Or should it be taken on faith?

Such as your Hinduism/Atheism comparison. It's the same rhetorical device by which Christians were called atheists. As a Christian, it appears easier for you to just ignore all distinctions and hold everyone in equal contempt.

Yes it is, except the word contempt would not apply in this specific case. Regardless, this comment doesn't support the assertion above.

Why cut yourself off from communication? Why render your evangelization mute?

This is an odd comment if the meaning I get is indeed the intended one. The same method of communication which seems to be the object of criticism was employed in a quote above.

Because, frankly, having been both Christian and Satanist in the past, I can tell you they're pretty much the same damn thing. Although Satanism's just a hair more honest.

Any supporting comments on this or should the word of an admitted former Satanist be taken on faith?

You know, I like this Satanic method of argument you've got going on. It's a lot easier than explaining that you're rather quite disrespectful and ought not take that tone with me.

Care to expound? Or... see below...

So, as a Christian, you redefine words for your convenience in order to teach other people to think as simply as you do?

Is this the "Satanic method of argument" that is referred to, because, then, it seems some elements of Satanism are also present in the post being replied to - from an admitted former satanist - no big surprise.

The simple fact is that you're selfishly (egocentric) blurring what you see by insisting on recognizing only that which is in extremely near-orbit (myopia).

This statement (rather humorous) would indicate an intimate knowledge of the individual being referred to (almost being the person), in which case, rather obviously, it can be dimissed as a baseless rant. Unless, it seems, one is, again, in arrogance, and in the most partially sighted of ways trying to project their own self-analysis unto another individual? After all, this same method of communication was used above (just to rub it in).

A circle is not a square; an apple is not an orange; a man is not a woman; a dog is not a cat.

You responded to the assertion that "religion will be on its way to extinction" with, "Atheism included of course". Now, maybe that felt as good as the smilie might suggest, but it's a dumb line because it's a contradiction in terms.

It should be simple enough, should it not, to point out that humans are religious and will continue to be?

But come the day that religion somehow becomes extinct, the word that will describe the condition of human thought as relates to God will be "atheisic".

Do you realize what you do to your evangelical-communicative potential when you muddle your terms intentionally because you think you should be able to?

Amen former Satanist. Actually the point was brought across quite well as illustrated by the myriad of responses (in admonishment) to it. And yes, here the psycholofy makes some amount of sense - it was the most gratifying statement to state; "Atheism included of course" which really puts a twist on "contradiction in terms".

 

[SnakeLord]

They're all religious then.

O...k. Perhaps they should start teaching people about porn movies in RE. That would most certainly take the students focus off sky daddy.

Atheists are on the planet.

Really?

Regardless, they are included by default. Definition 5). Welcome to the flock.

This is where the faulty brain slips up. By default you would have to include number 1 from the list, and there's a specific reason as to why it's number 1 on the list. While number 5 does include everyone on the planet, and as such, in your eyes, would make a serial killer religious by default, it is worthless without number 1.

Of course I get the feeling you already knew this but were just being silly in the hope that it would save you from the tremendous mess you've got yourself into by thinking atheism is a religion.

Refer to your quoted definition above. It seems you said it too in the 'canonical' dictionary quote.

If you can't figure it out by yourself, I can't help you do so. You'd probably complain once RE is full of stamp collecting lessons, train spotting lessons, and fellatio lessons.

I would advise you to re-evaluate the "haven't answered" statements.

Aww, you want me to cheer you up and say you have answered, even when you haven't? I can feel all that childlike innocence streaming from your pores.

I do not answer questions to which the answers are obvious and effectively irrelevant.

But if that's how you feel, then you shouldn't have butted into this thread.. no? So in essence you just came here to claim that "your kind" are right, even though you don't even understand the word 'religion' and nothing more? Some people..

Thus, my answer to the question about the low 'religiosity' in Germany; It wouldn't be low if atheism were included now would it?

But it can't because atheism isn't a religion. No more so than dog walking is a religion.

Now if you think for a while as is the characteristic attributed by some to atheists in general, I'm sure you'd get the point.

"In general" is completely irrelevant. In general people think ostriches bury their heads in sand. It doesn't change the fact that they don't.

I'm sure you know a rhetorical question may serve as an answer to a question or statement...

Sure, but your rhetoric is irrelevant and doesn't actually answer anything. While it 'may', yours 'doesn't'.

Or try to serve as an answer... so when you stated 'your kind' you were referring to those who see the fact that atheism is under the religious umbrella. Fair enough.

Fact? Come now, even you should know better than to do that.

I would advise you to hone your memory, to the standard of your thinking ability as assessed by some, in-so-far as you're an atheist. Dull memory leads to confusion.

I wonder why you're purposely being misleading. I'm sure you'd resort to your standard comment when you get yourself in a pickle: "It was just humour", but we both know that's not the case.

The text I provided was an example to the question, (which ends with ?). If you go back and look, you'll notice the question. It comes just before the example that highlights the question. I further wonder why, after going to such trouble to quote my text, you missed including the actual question. I find that quite cowardly. Here it is again:

"In the long run isn't it just going to damage and overtake the religious views of the world?"

The thing is that RE aside, a large majority of children will be 'given' a belief by their parents, and will grow up in an environment where that belief is imprinted upon them daily. Many such children don't feel in a position to debate their parents ideals and beliefs, but perhaps the teaching of atheism would allow that. Once they realise that a person can not believe in a god, still have morals and still be accepted by society he might be more inclined to explore that angle of approach. It would perhaps be a refreshing change from all the "do as we say and believe this" he received as a child.

So, to ask again.. do you feel atheism being taught could perhaps hinder or damage religious views of the world?

In your model, religious claims for God's existence fade away and only atheism prevails (see above). You get the point but it seems you're in some sort of denial. Are you saying that there would be atheism or there wouldn't be? What is the difference between an 'atheism definiton' (new phrase for me) and an atheist (focusing on the descriptive aspect)? Doesn't the definition of atheism apply to atheists? Interesting. You seem to be advocating the notion that if there are no claims of God existing... no 'god definition' God might still exist. I think you got a bit too technical there.

You've lost the plot. It would seem that I did get a bit too technical for you, as you rightly state. Let me simplify it if I can..

If nobody believed in a god, they would technically all be atheists - but without any belief in gods, the term "atheist" would be redundant. As you've said, an atheist can only be defined because there are theists, and while an absolute lack of theists would technically make everyone an atheist, nobody would be using the term atheist. Is that less technical?

Interesting nerve I hit there

I apologise, but I am allergic to stupidity, and that's all your "peer pressure" comment promoted.

I would invite the psychologist to offer a psycho-analysis.

That happens to be my profession. Would you seriously like to me explain it all for you, or is this some more of your humour?

I would also invite you to be honest with yourself.

I would ask the same in return. Peer pressure... ehehehehe.

Or when you finally manage to understand... or maybe accept... the answers...

Or perhaps when you actually answer them.

 

[Tiassa]

And you claim Tiassa that Satanism was more honest.

Just a hair.

That is because you despise self-control and all the other fruits of the Spirit of God.

One of Satanism's vital faults it that it celebrates to what I consider an inappropriate degree the animalistic aspects of humanity. Nonetheless, Satanism does try to deal affirmatively with human nature, where Christianity vilifies it.

Additionally, although a minor point, Satan and God both appear in the Bible. One interesting difference is that Satan doesn't lie.

 

[Tiassa]

These are not limitations. If one knew of a way possible to do these then they may be considered limitations. A limit is defined by a comparison right?

I'll grant you that. I do not object. The point it lends to works just as well as it is. Mutual exclusion is a central theme.

Compared to the idea of "omnipotence", what God cannot do must necessarily be intrinsically impossible. You'll notice two points listed in the Catholic Encyclopedia, for instance:

As intrinsically impossible must be classed:

1. Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes;
2. Any action that would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements, e.g. a square circle, an infinite creature, etc.​

New Advent

Both are to be applied practically; according to the first, God cannot sin, cannot reverse decrees, and cannot create an absolutely best creature. The second is quite obvious at the outset.

However, the first point, at least as the Catholic Encyclopedia has it, is questionable. Certainly, that God cannot sin is a result of God's authority in the relationship between sin and God. And the obscure point about an absolutely best creature essentially creates a comparison that could easily include it as a mutually exclusive element. But that God cannot reverse decrees--this is extrabiblical, both directly in the case of God repenting of Saul's kingship, and also insofar as arguments regarding free will often tread a dangerous line in comparing God's knowledge and wisdom--and thus also God's understanding and compassion--to human choices. One comes to realize that God, knowing what He knew, chose to create humans with the knowledge of what would happen at Eden, and thus intended that man should live in separation, dependent on Christ for salvation.

Which brings us to a common misconception: God can be evil, it's just not a sin for God to do so. Many people tend to consider the idea of God committing evil out of harmony with the Goodness of God. Yet that's the point. Why did God call home a child? Worry not, for it is good. Why did God allow/cause/&c. an earthquake/locust swarm/&c.? Worry not, for it is good.

Hence the phrase: "The Lord works in mysterious ways".

Such as Genesis, or Job, or 1 Samuel. What God does, while sometimes evil, is not a sin.

At any rate, I digress. But then again, while it changes little of the aspect of this discussion it addressed, this point was about the only thing worth addressing in that post. Although I will make one other note:

Care to expound? Or... see below...

Actually, it would be better to look up a couple paragraphs:

Or are you going to try to tell me there's a difference between you and a Satanist?

Christian and Satanist describe two mutually exclusive things, at least in the sense we consider the square circle. However, Satanism and Christianity, being four-dimensional to the shapes' two, and being dynamic, are not independent of one another; while Satanism seems like a natural rebellion against the Christian yoke, it's more akin to sitting in one's room and sulking. The Nine Statements are actually more valuable for their humor than their wisdom; that ain't much.

The point being that it is equally as absurd for me to call a Christian a Satanist as it would be for me to call either an atheist. Regardless of one's opinion of the God they worship, there is a practical absurdity in calling the faithful atheist.

And such it is with abusive, demeaning assignations such as "Hindu = Atheism", although I defer to your acknowledgment of the point as well as your missing it.

 

[MarcAC]

This is where the faulty brain slips up. By default you would have to include number 1 from the list, and there's a specific reason as to why it's number 1 on the list. While number 5 does include everyone on the planet, and as such, in your eyes, would make a serial killer religious by default, it is worthless without number 1.

I will leave you with that opinion and advise you to review a few dictionary definitions.

 

[MarcAC]

God can be evil, it's just not a sin for God to do so.

Interesting statement; you have God, evil, sin in it. The question is which is at the root; sin or evil or are they in essence one and the same? They both use God as the ultimate reference. They are referenced by God's will and are against it. God cannot sin, God cannot be evil. God will not go against God's will. God is good. God wills No square circles, as long as it isn't God's will.
-
Btw, I did see the net effect of your rantings (you disagree that they were?). However, the bolded parts of the quotes in my previous post seemed rather unrelated to the intended net effect. I think you fell into your own trap there but will we ever know...?

 

[Dreamwalker]

God is not good, if he is anything he is perfect.

 

[MarcAC]

God is not good, if he is anything he is perfect.

I would contend God is good, but perfection doesn't exist.

 

[SnakeLord]

I will leave you with that opinion and advise you to review a few dictionary definitions.

Any specific dictionary or were you just making a wild guess as to what these few dictionaries actually say?

But no, wtf am I thinking? Of course dog walking is a religion. Only a fool would think otherwise.. :bugeye:

 

[Tiassa]

The question is which is at the root; sin or evil or are they in essence one and the same

I see it differently: Evil is a relative result. What God does is good; yet God does not escape the results of His actions or decisions. To wit, Job: God does not escape responsibility merely because he sent Satan to do the job anymore than you or I would escape responsibility for someone's death were we to hire someone else to do it.

Does the child's death seem evil? Yes. Does God have His reasons? Yes.

However, the measure of sin is in the offense against God. Should God will leukemia unto the child, or perhaps a terrorist; the destruction of a life might seem evil, but as it is God's will, it cannot offend God.

Thus, God can order the extermination of an entire people (1 Samuel 15), and while genocide itself is evil, it cannot be said that the Jews sinned against God in carrying out His order; nor can it be said that God sinned against Himself in giving the order. In fact, the Bible records that the failure to carry out the genocide constituted a sin against God, who would repent of Saul's kingship over the matter.

What is there in all Creation that escapes God's authority? Neither Death nor Devil nor Nothing At All.

Is God extraneous? I sincerely doubt it. God does what He must, else He would do it differently.

Eden, for instance. And the giving of the Son.

 

[§outh§tar]

God can be evil, it's just not a sin for God to do so.

Since when did God stoop to mere man's level and start having double standards?

 

[Tiassa]

§outh§tar

Oh, pretty early on, I would imagine. By the end of Genesis 3, maybe.

Actually, how is it a double-standard? As I see it, it's a matter of definitions. In this case a double-standard only exists by isolating sin as a concept that exists without God. I accept that definition, but don't think it really applies to these considerations.

 

[c20H25N3o]

Since when did God stoop to mere man's level and start having double standards?

in regards to ...

God can be evil, it's just not a sin for God to do so.

If we can start by accepting that God is 'love' I will explain the statement made so that you may be able to put it away safely.

Yesterday I was in a supermarket. My little boy (bless him) and I were leaving with our shopping in a cart down an escalator. My little boy is just 4 years old and is a fiery little character to boot. He has no fear when he is with me at all (Daddy will you come to the toilet with me, I am scared on my own).
The trouble is that because he feels no fear, he can get a little carried away and will run off. He did just that very thing. Now just at the bottom of the escalator are automatic sliding doors, I am sure you know the ones that I mean. This means that he could go straight through them without anyone physically having to open them and outside is a very very busy road.
I had to leave my trolly of shopping on the escalator (it is kind of stuck to the belt by magnets) and run hell for leather after him so afraid was I that he would run out into the road. I yelled angrily at him to stop and he turned and looked at me from the entrance of the automatic doors and he stopped (thank God). I took him by both hands (completely forgetting that my trolley was about to be delivered to me as it slid off the escalator) and admonished him strongly for running off, holding him squarely by his shoulders as I did so, furious that he had caused fright in me such as he did. He looked afraid because he could see the fear in my own eyes and started to cry ashamed of what he had done.
Just at that moment an elderly white haired couple walked into the shopping centre and both smiled at the scene that was before them i.e. a young dad telling his kid off for running away. The old lady said five words to me in all kindness, she said "You were like that once".
It could be said that I were a hypocrite for shouting at my son and making him cry because I too were the same once upon a time. It could be said that I was evil for shouting at him and making him shake when he was not aware of any wrongdoing, innocent child that he is. There are sentimentalists out there who would say that I have no right to punish a little innocent child and that it is 'evil'. But I saved him from certain death such was his will to be free.
I have absolutely no doubt that this will not be the last time this scene occurs. God tends to like things to go round and round and round and round and round and round and round and round

peace

c20

 

[c20H25N3o]

Yo c20,

You are not judging are you? A honest Christian would know not to judge. You also now seem to know Tiassa and his nature intimately. Not cool.

I speak as I find and Tiassa speaks against the truth of the Gospel. If I am punished by God for defending the work of Christ so be it.
I cannot be any more honest than that.

peace

c20

 

[MarcAC]

I see it differently: Evil is a relative result. What God does is good; yet God does not escape the results of His actions or decisions.

Sure, but relative to what? God's will right? Otherwise I do not understand what you would reference evil to as opposed to sin.

Does the child's death seem evil? Yes.

Why? But then, the disparities between the non-theistic and theistic (afterlife) views on life will ultimately end in disagreement on this issue.

However, the measure of sin is in the offense against God. Should God will leukemia unto the child, or perhaps a terrorist; the destruction of a life might seem evil, but as it is God's will, it cannot offend God.

But why or how does it seem evil? Because it just seems that way?

My view on this is that God's love is integral to God's nature. God's will is refernced to God's nature. Thus what is against God's will is against the 'harmony of love' which is integral to God's nature and that is the origin of sin and evil.

Thus the question then is; Does death in all cases go against that 'harmony of love'? I contend it doesn't. The only 'absolute evil' (if you will) is going against the Will of God; everything else is relative.

 

[MarcAC]

On a (humourous) side note, there is psychology and psycho-logy... and there are psychologists and psycho-logists. I find that one of the main motives to enter such a profession (psychology) is to understand oneself. I find it the most unnerving thing to discover logic in the mode of a psychopath's thinking (psycho-logy).

 

[Avatar]

No ideology or religion should be taught in schools.

 

[c20H25N3o]

No ideology or religion should be taught in schools.

Jesus went further. He said "Dont call anyone teacher!"

 

[Tiassa]

Sure, but relative to what? God's will right? Otherwise I do not understand what you would reference evil to as opposed to sin.

Evil is relative to perception. It may well be God's will to call the child home, but a dead baby will seem an evil outcome to many nonetheless.

Why? But then, the disparities between the non-theistic and theistic (afterlife) views on life will ultimately end in disagreement on this issue.

The reason why depends on the person. But to God, it's all a matter of Will, and inherently Good. The perception of evil is invested independently of God's will. A discord of faith, it is perhaps the fruit of Eden.

There is an old philosophical tale that tells of the soul of a child, entering Heaven, who asks God why another soul ahead of him entered a higher plane of Paradise. "He had more time to do more of my work, and earn his reward in Heaven," explained God. "Why was I not given time to do your work?" asked the child. "Because," said God, "I knew that a disaster would befall you, and you would be led into temptation. I could not let that happen." Whereupon there came a mighty wail from down below, a chorus of the damned: "Lord, why did you not call us home before we were led into temptation?"

Regardless of the theological presumptions leading to its superficial value, there is a simpler, deeper current there: God moves in mysterious ways. An ageless principle reflecting the mysteries that move us to worship gods in the first place.

But why or how does it seem evil? Because it just seems that way?

I've been loath to ask a parent who has lost a child whether or not they got an answer when they asked God why it had to be their child. But even Job cursed the day of his birth. Evil is relative:

Thus the question then is; Does death in all cases go against that 'harmony of love'? I contend it doesn't. The only 'absolute evil' (if you will) is going against the Will of God; everything else is relative.

And thus is evil for you. While I find a certain abstract agreement, I generally don't leave it so simply, as that results in confusion over what the Will of God actually is. If people come to somehow understand God's will, less will seem evil.

But each person understands life differently: what they consider evil is the result of each person's experience and assessment. Even as a question of God's will, He reveals himself to each person according to their own understanding.