Jan Ardena:
What religion would that be?
You tell me. I think we worked out that you're an ex Hari Krishna or something, didn't we? As far as I can tell, you've invented your own idiosyncratic belief system, cobbled together by picking and choosing elements from various preferred "scriptures" from various major religions. There must be some fringe influence or influences thrown in for good measure, because you're fairly far out on a limb when it come to science denial, fear of imminent Judgment and a few other things that come up with you from time to time.
You're talking about your own idea, back when you thought you were a theist.
Nothing you say relates to theism.
No, I'm talking about my ideas
now about what I've managed to glean from your fairly long posting record regarding your beliefs. The truth can be uncomfortable. I understand that having one's own irrationality held up as a mirror can be uncomfortable, hence the projection and the desire to deflect.
It's fascinating to observe the lengths you will go to in order to avoid examining your own beliefs, Jan. Really. A real eye opener.
God is infallible, not me.
See what you did there? You took a statement about your
own knowledge and tried to distance yourself from it by turning into something abstract about God.
Doesn't it get old that I can now catch you out on your attempts at distraction, without even trying? Why do you persist in the attempt?
iceaura is right. The only really interesting question that remains regarding your postings here is:
why do you post in such a fundamentally dishonest fashion? Is it self-protection? Are you so far down the rabbit hole that you're no longer able to discern reality from fantasy, perhaps? Is it that you regard the atheists here as your enemy, and you adopt a Scientology-style "fair game" strategy to answer the perceived threat?
Anything that is theistic in content, is baseless to a person who has subconsciously confirmed to themselves ''There is no God''.
Why not just admit that you believe in direct revelation? Why toss around words like "evidence" as if they mean something to you? Your belief system, as far as I can tell, is based entirely on some dubious gut feelings you have about what the universe is like. Why not just tell me that you think that you have a direct line to God, and be done with it?
This is simply you being angry.
Again with the attempted deflection?
You're afraid that if you don't abide by what you believe to be God's divine law, then God will judge you in whatever afterlife you believe in. Perhaps you're worried you'll be reincarnated as something unsavory. Or perhaps you think the Final Judgement is coming soon. It's not clear. What is clear is that, either way, you're afraid of your God. Apparently, you also think that this God of yours is vengeful. It must give you some comfort to think that we atheists will get our comeuppance when we die, sinners that we are.
When it comes to pretending to be a theist, then tarring all theists with your brush, I very much do.
There was no pretence about it. I was a theist, not very different from you. Less dogmatic, certainly. More willing to explore the foundations of my own beliefs, unquestionably. But a believer in the same kind of Higher Power you believe in. To describe me as anything other than a theist is just denial that it is possible to change one's views on the God question.
You've never talked about God, or your relationship with, and to God, because you never had one.
Years ago, there was an opportunity for you to have that discussion with me. I opened up to some extent to you about my prior beliefs. There was zero
quid pro quo from you. You jealously guard your most cherished beliefs. I think it's because you're worried about being embarrassed if you were ever to express them honestly. It's all about the small target with you. That alone cannot account for the fundamentally dishonest way you choose to conduct yourself in our discussions, of course. That behaviour demands its own explanation. I can only assume that you think that your belief system somehow licenses you to be evasive and intellectually dishonest. I'd like to know why, but I only have theories.
I must say that you strike me as a person who is immensely insecure about his own beliefs, in a way that is unusual among theists whom I have met. So, maybe it all comes back to a kind of self-defence mechanism that got out of control. Then again, it could be something more sinister.
Is that what you believed when you thought you were a theist.
Actually, no. Unlike yourself, I was never a biblical literalist fundamentalist. I regarded the Adam and Eve story as a foundation myth, almost from the first time I heard it. Same for Noah's Ark and that kind of thing. I understood that Jesus told parables - stories to make a moral or other point, that were not to be taken as literally true descriptions of events. In the same way, I understood some biblical stories to be fairly obvious parables.
It was never vital to my theistic belief that I accept "scripture" as the literal truth in all its particulars. This is why it is interesting to me to come across people like you who do invest in "scripture" to a quite obsessive and unsustainable degree. I mean, going out of your way to reject science on the basis that you demand your scripture to be literally true in all respects is quite an impressive act of self-deception - especially so since it is unnecessary.
That says nothing about killing gays.
Care to try again.
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them"
They'll be "put to death". Oh, but that doesn't mean that anybody will (or should) kill them. Right, whatever you say, Jan. (I must say, I expected this kind of nonsense come-back from you on this. You're nothing if not boringly predictable.)
It doesn't tell me, you, or any ordinary person to kill.
Oh, I see. It tells extraordinary people to kill. Is that what it's doing?
What about the part where God tells Joshua to take his armies and kill all the woman and children in one town or another, just for example? Is that another example of God not telling "ordinary" people to kill? Did Joshua get special instructions because he was extraordinary? Is that what you're saying?
Did God say "All you ordinary, regular people, listen up! Don't kill anything or anybody, okay? But all my Chosen ones, please kill and rape and maim as I direct you to, because you're all Extraordinary!"
Is that how it went, Jan?
It seems to me that God doesn't do a very good job in the bible of clearly distinguishing between those who are directed to kill in His name and those who are not.
Also, what about the role modelling? Why does God himself get a free pass with his killings, all the while telling us "ordinary" people not to kill? Can you explain that?
It clearly instructs us not to kill.
Can you find anything that instructs man to go out and kill?
Of course. There are many hundreds of such examples in the bible.
Where does say, or even imply, that God is a role model.
I see. God can do what he likes because, being the dictator as to what is Good and Evil, he gets to ignore his own rules, which are set down for mere "ordinary" mortals. Is that what you're saying?
Are babies exempt from the rules of the house?
Are you saying you're a baby, in this context?
I don't even know what that means.
I can't get a direct answer from any Christian.
I see. So Adam and Eve is part of the Jan Ardena Canon of Things that Shall Not be Questioned, but the notion that Jesus died for our sins is an optional belief that Jan is excused from in Jan's particular religious mish-mash of ideas? Is that how it works for you?
Of course I have looked into it.
What you call evidence, isn't evidence.
Nobody knows that Fido turned into a great big whale.
That's a fact.
What you're saying is equivalent to saying something like "Nobody actually knows that the Earth orbits the Sun", or "Nobody knows that the Sun is a big ball of hydrogen".
After all, such statements are
merely well-established scientific theories, supported by persuasive scientific evidence. So, all such statements can be safely discounted, particularly if they conflict with an ancient scripture that one considers vital for propping up one's religious belief system. Right?
It matters not a jot what you think about evolution. It is quite clear that you're in no position to venture an informed opinion on the topic.
You rightly ought be embarrassed that you're willing to expose this level of ignorance on a science forum, of all places.
