Jump to content

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

What do we do with people who, when one points out (even in the most gentle manner) that they are doing something wrong by harming another, choose to feel they are being persecuted?

When a Christian's actions cause harm. It is because his or her theology is flawed, and the only solution is to focus on the theology and convince them of thier errors. Focusing on the harm they do will not work.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hiya folks. Science is not about truth. Scientists do not claim to hold the truth. Science is merely the art of not BS-sing yourself or others, while trying to understand things and make predictions b

The term "genocide" was coined in 1944. Historians researching wars prior to then will never find the word "genocide" in accounts of those times, so it takes more careful analysis of the historical re

Posted Images

6 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Now you are ranting now.  

No. But I do have some idea now you are as indifferent to facts as the traditional Jewish, including 'your'Jesus, were to Roman law, Greek philosophy or general common sense.

OK. I'm stepping down.

Edited by TDD123
ETA Step down.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Talligurl said:
20 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

What do we do with people who, when one points out (even in the most gentle manner) that they are doing something wrong by harming another, choose to feel they are being persecuted?

When a Christian's actions cause harm. It is because his or her theology is flawed, and the only solution is to focus on the theology and convince them of thier errors. Focusing on the harm they do will not work.

Well that's kind of a problem when the central tenant of Christianity is to love others. I mean, harming others doesn't fit.

Perhaps this is the theology to point out?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

"I am ticketing you for speeding. "

"No officer, I only am to be held responsible by my Lord and Saviour and your accusation is invalid, because I prayed to God and promised I would drive safely. "

Okay, there are no "laws" to be an orthodox Hebrew.  Me goes and does something else.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

When a Christian's actions cause harm. It is because his or her theology is flawed, and the only solution is to focus on the theology and convince them of thier errors. Focusing on the harm they do will not work.

Why doesn't it work to focus on the harm they might be doing?  Do fundamentalists not care if they harm others, in general?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Since this thread is digressing ( towards I don't know where and don't want to go there should I find out ), I find contestants on any side should be aware of the following taken from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory :

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory

 

Quote

 

The Difference Between Hypothesis and Theory

A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is usually tentative; it's an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory. Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, it is understood to be more likely to be true than a hypothesis is.

In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice. 1

Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.

The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)

This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general to mean something lightly speculated, then it's implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.

The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was "a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things." As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said, a theory "doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”

While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said "to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up."

 

So

Darwin's theory of Evolution = to explain things that have already been substantiated by data.

Religion = to explain things that have already been substantiated by inspired unquestionable authority.

 

 

Edited by TDD123
1 Bolded by me.
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Why doesn't it work to focus on the harm they might be doing?  Do fundamentalists not care if they harm others, in general?

Because focusing on that alone robs all of us of valuable contributions of scientists with religious backgrounds ? The Bing Bang theory being one of them ?

Edited by TDD123
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Bwaaaaaaaaah.  

Okay, you and Alwin and I are splitting hairs but it kind of proved something to me anyways.  As I was saying, the Bible is in large part a recording of events not scripture.  That is really what I wanted to say.  However, the events of which to be exact how important are they really to mankind overall?  Not much, imo.  So, I think there is no reason to look at all the hairs of it when I say it's in part a recording of events not scripture.  And, a poorly translated recording at that.

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TDD123 said:
33 minutes ago, Luna Bliss said:

Why doesn't it work to focus on the harm they might be doing?  Do fundamentalists not care if they harm others, in general?

Because focusing on that alone robs of valuable contributions of scientists with religious backgrounds ? The Bing Bang theory being one of them ?

Well it looks like you are trying to bring this back on topic...shame on you! lol  😉

I'm more responding to Talligurl who lives among fundamentalists and is exploring how best to respond to them. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Talligurl said:

When a Christian's actions cause harm. It is because his or her theology is flawed, and the only solution is to focus on the theology and convince them of thier errors. Focusing on the harm they do will not work.

I dare to disagree. Your point is only valid if you see Christianity only as peacefull and caring. Is it that?.. the Bible tells different.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, roseelvira said:

so the words  beaten  into him   is it the literal or figurative  meaning???

@roseelvira

Literal . The way I remember him telling me was that if you didn't learn you were beaten across the palms of the hands with a tawse.  (A school in Scotland where I understood it to be all the teachers were Jesuit priests.)

2 hours ago, roseelvira said:

St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuits said: "Give me the child for seven years, and I will give you the man."

I could be be wrong, but I remember him saying "Give us a child until the age of 8 and we will have him for life." Meaning, once taught by Jesuits then you will remain indoctrinated in their beliefs for life, No escape.

Except when he was 18 or so he was given the choice, join the church, become a priest of go into engineering. He chose the latter :)

2 hours ago, roseelvira said:

the parables were to teach moral lessons and aimed at the adults.

Well I learnt the stories of Jesus at primary school. Thankfully it was not required to repeat those lessons in secondary school. 

2 hours ago, roseelvira said:

Except that for many it is not a case of free will

Meaning if you are indoctrinated at a very young age, that religion will stay with you for a very long time. Which is why I mentioned the saying my grandfather attributed to the Jesuits.

You have lost the choice of free will when it comes to religion and in some cases these religious ideas influence your views on science etc. I asked myself questions and searched for answers. I eventually found enough evidence that allowed myself to break free from this indoctrination.

IMHO I would like to see religion removed altogether from the curriculum of state primary schools.

Edited by Aquila Kytori
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

Bwaaaaaaaaah. 

:D

29 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

As I was saying, the Bible is in large part a recording of events not scripture.  That is really what I wanted to say.

Noted. That's ... an interesting hypothesis.

29 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

However, the events of which to be exact how important are they really to mankind overall?  Not much, imo. 

Well, to us 'needs to be convinced by substantiated data'- kinda people who are a part of mankind actually very much.  ;)

29 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

.. it's in part a recording of events not scripture.  And, a poorly translated recording at that.

We totally agree on the latter part, yes.

Edited by TDD123
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Well, to us 'needs to be convinced by substantiated data'- kinda people who are a part of mankind actually very much.

Yes, I agree.  I realized that when I wrote it.  What the real truth is - it's a long debate with needing to look up scripture to back up one's claim, imo.  Honestly, I'd need a refresher course on the Sanhedrin but then I asked myself "is it really worth it?"  For now, I say no, it's not really worth it, it's too laborious for me to want to do right now.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcatxVMBh0

Warning : Link contains profane language. NSFW

 

Actually, I would never say anything like that.  I hope fundamentalists know that as I have them in my family too and treat them no differently and have never said that to one who believes literally.  It is frustrating though to be thrown a supposed scripture at me that has nothing to do with anything and isn't even scripture in the first place from my sister.  I am frustrated with my sister who is a bible believing literalist.  Where she stands on evolution, I would never ask her because it would end up as kooky as this thread and just exhaust both of us.  She sings in the choir and is at church most of the time other than work and taking care of herself -eating, sleeping, showering, etc.  But, still, no, I would not say that.  But, causing harm to others does need to be taken seriously.  Whether my sister will admit to it or not - nah, she won't.  Her pat answer to a lot of things is "the bible says that's wrong" so I know that's the response I am going to get.  

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Luna Bliss said:

Why doesn't it work to focus on the harm they might be doing?  Do fundamentalists not care if they harm others, in general?

I can tell you that my sister will say she does not care if something is doing harm to someone because she cares about what the Bible says "about it" period which is saying, with her, there is no room for discussion.    That would be her answer and I have gotten that answer from her.  She cares about what the Bible says about it. 

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

 But, still, no, I would not say that.  But, causing harm to others does need to be taken seriously.

I always considered you to be far more subtle yet less concise than Christopher.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

I always considered you to be far more subtle yet less concise than Christopher.

That sounds like a riddle.  I don't know anyone named Christopher.  But, actually TDD123, I don't believe I have ever said that phrase to anyone.  It's just not my style.  I'd need another way.  I usually change the subject with my bible literalist sister because I've learned it goes no where anyways.  What is the use of cursing at someone?  Okay, maybe I threw a few curse words at my ex-husband but he was being a bleep.  And, my ex-husband curses like a New York cab driver - he's from the East Coast.  West Coast people don't curse as much like East Coast.  We're more mellow.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, FairreLilette said:

That sounds like a riddle.  I don't know anyone named Christopher.

Christopher Hitchens, an atheist who was often debated against and revered by American Christian scholars.

I hope you will, in spite of what you first seen of him, get to know him better.

Edited by TDD123
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for replying. I in no way meant to cause any memory or emotional pain. 

1 hour ago, Aquila Kytori said:

I could be be wrong, but I remember him saying "Give us a child until the age of 8 and we will have him for life." Meaning, once taught by Jesuits then you will remain indoctrinated in their beliefs for life, No escape.

Except when he was 18 or so he was given the choice, join the church, become a priest of go into engineering. He chose the latter :)

   Note /// not disregarding  what you wrote . The country your grandfather  lived in  were they given the tests to determine what life path . I know of one country when at a certain age you are tested and life paths are limited as to how you did on the test.

The other question was the school he went to was  there no other choice for his education ,,,, Here in the usa  we have the choices of public or private  and religion is not taught  in the public schools.

My husband  said his education at his   schools   { he attended catholic  schools}   in the sciences  encouraged the students  to question to go further in your quest for answers. .For there are many mysteries as yet to be solved. 

  I know i do not express myself correctly or  the emotions of love  in my heart ....  and trying to  express the  heartache i feel  for you ,after  reading your post.

It is a heartbreaking  reality that in most every walk of life,  career ,political , etc   there will be those  few  who create  pain where there should be love and blessings.

I was taught GOD AND JESUS  ARE LOVE ,,,

and i still hold on to that .

Hug and love to  you.

 

 

 

Edited by roseelvira
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Profaitchikenz Haiku said:

at the end it needs a test, such as travelling across the oceain  in a 747.

Oh, there will always be people who will find a way to 'discredit' such a test. They would not believe things that would prove them wrong if they saw it with their own eyes.

Fortunately, this particular debate about 'Darwinism' is still rather innocent. I don't believe anyone is going to kill anyone else over a dispute for or against the theory of evolution.

However, discussions about whether there is a god or not, and what scriptures or stories about which god are true, well, history has shown how that ended on several occasions. So that's already a lot scarier.

The most bat ***** insane I have seen as of late, though, are the QAnon conspiracies, the mask burning at the Idaho capitol (where mask-wearing isn't even mandatory), cops being beaten with blue line flag poles, and the worst of all, patients gasping for breath, dying of COVID-19 while they are in denial, refusing to accept the lab tests their physician is showing them, arguing with doctors, experts, while they should spend their last moment on WhatsApp saying goodbye to their relatives. All because the internet said so.

This thread is not by far as dangerous but the misinformation, the ignorance, the misunderstanding and misinterpretations, are staggering and insane and still quite scary on a very similar level.

Edited by Arduenn Schwartzman
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alwin Alcott said:

I dare to disagree. Your point is only valid if you see Christianity only as peacefull and caring. Is it that?.. the Bible tells different.

It is supposed to be peaceful "vengeance is mine, sayeth The Lord."  Bible literalists for the most believe the Bible or the word of God is their sword and there are considered scriptures for that.  As far as could we head, in the United States, towards violence, I hope not.  But, it scares me sometimes that it might happen.   As far as Christianity's history, it's horrible.  I am not a bible believing, it's all literal Christian.  It is a collection of writings.  Okay, perhaps you and TDD123 don't even believe me when I say part of the Bible is a recording of events...well, it is.  The Gospels were written according to each Apostle as they saw it, and thus each Gospel starts with "this is Gospel account according to ______________ insert name here" or something similar as I don't want to Google for exact scriptures.  And, the writings of Paul which are the books that come after the Gospel accounts were letters and not really an account.  The books of Paul or the Epistles I do not take as necessary for Christianity but were more for church control of others, imo, and many have been cherry-picked out and/or tampered with. 

And, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" seems to be lacking today or always was.   

Edited by FairreLilette
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, roseelvira said:

Thank you for replying. I in no way meant to cause any memory or emotional pain. 

   Note /// not disregarding  what you wrote . The country your grandfather  lived in  were they given the tests to determine what life path . I know of one country when at a certain age you are tested and life paths are limited as to how you did on the test.

The other question was the school he went to was  there no other choice for his education ,,,, Here in the usa  we have the choices of public or private  and religion is not taught  in the public schools.

My husband  said his education at his   schools   { he attended catholic  schools}   in the sciences  encouraged the students  to question to go further in your quest for answers. .For there are many mysteries as yet to be solved. 

  I know i do not express myself correctly or  the emotions of love  in my heart ....  and trying to  express the  heartache i feel  for you ,after  reading your post.

It is a heartbreaking  reality that in most every walk of life,  career ,political , etc   there will be those  few  who create  pain where there should be love and blessings.

I was taught GOD AND JESUS  ARE LOVE ,,,

and i still hold on to that .

Hug and love to  you.

 

 

 

When his grandfather was in school, it was an entirely different era.  Even my own parents and myself to some degree, were schooled in a time when spankings were still deemed appropriate discipline.  In public schools.  My father did tell me.the nuns where he went to school often would smack children on the back of the hands with a wooden ruler if they were goofing off.  

Times change.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...