-->
@FLRW
That is because God didn't have Jeffery Epstein working for him.
And Jesus surrounded himself with men.
How humanist are you?
Posts
Total:
101
-->
@Shila
That is because God didn't have Jeffery Epstein working for him.And Jesus surrounded himself with men.
And women.
There are a few Marys. Joanna. Susanna. Salome , the women of Bethany and quite a few un-named.
But the Gospel authors and christian church have relegated them to the margins of the Jesus story affording them the minimal of appearances.
-->
@Stephen
And Jesus surrounded himself with men.And women.There are a few Marys. Joanna. Susanna. Salome , the women of Bethany and quite a few un-named.But the Gospel authors and christian church have relegated them to the margins of the Jesus story affording them the minimal of appearances.
Jesus remained unmarried which was very unusual for a Jew of his time. There is no mention of any sexual encounter with women.
-->
@Shila
And Jesus surrounded himself with men.And women.There are a few Marys. Joanna. Susanna. Salome , the women of Bethany and quite a few un-named.But the Gospel authors and christian church have relegated them to the margins of the Jesus story affording them the minimal of appearances.Jesus remained unmarried which was very unusual for a Jew of his time.
I agree. I could be wrong but it is my understanding that a Rabbi was required to be married and have children. But this may not have been compulsory. It may have been that he was a Celibate of the Qumran community?
There is no mention of any sexual encounter with women.
No there isn't. But in some of the gnostics there is a reference to him often kissing Mary Magdalene on the lips and a few of his followers raising objections.
-->
@Stephen
I agree. I could be wrong but it is my understanding that a Rabbi was required to be married and have children. But this may not have been compulsory. It may have been that he was a Celibate of the Qumran community?
Isaiah 53 speaks of Jesus having offsprings.
Isaiah 53:10
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes[c] his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
-->
@Shila
I agree. I could be wrong but it is my understanding that a Rabbi was required to be married and have children. But this may not have been compulsory. It may have been that he was a Celibate of the Qumran community?Isaiah 53 speaks of Jesus having offsprings.
Well that deserves a thread all of its own. Be nice to see the apologist/s explain that.
-->
@Stephen
Well that deserves a thread all of its own. Be nice to see the apologist/s explain that.
He would you rather ignored him than have to deal with your questions.
-->
@Shila
Well that deserves a thread all of its own. Be nice to see the apologist/s explain that.He would you rather ignored him than have to deal with your questions.
He doesn't have to answer my questions.
-->
@Stephen
He doesn't have to answer my questions.
It is just as embarrassing to be stumped by questions.
-->
@Shila
He doesn't have to answer my questions.It is just as embarrassing to be stumped by questions.
There may be something in that, Shila.
But what has to taken into serious consideration is that "Christians" whether the be Pastors, Priests or Chaplains have had over 2000 years to enable them to answers any question thrown their way. Especially in the light of the fact that new information concerning the Jesus period is being discovered and unearthed almost on a regular basis. And the obvious fact that we in the 21st century are far more educated than those living just 150years ago.
My opinion is that the authority and the power that they once enjoyed and are so used to, along with the ignorance of the people they so depended on and the fact of going unchallenged , is now slipping away and they were never educated in how to respond to those "embarrassing " questions that now regularly leaves them "stumped". So what are their responses?
The responses are usually to lie, (usually about their own status and authority)rewrite whole verses from scripture and redefine words or simply to lay down rules and caveats before even entertaining the idea of responding to a genuine question that poses the slightest challenge to their imagined authority.
As I wrote earlier on another thread, I do not care if or not the my questions go answered or unanswered.
I am happy simply to have asked the question openly, and that could, and sometimes does, cause others to think about it for themselves and sometimes pose to others themselves.#55
-->
@Stephen
As I wrote earlier on another thread, I do not care if or not the my questions go answered or unanswered.I am happy simply to have asked the question openly, and that could, and sometimes does, cause others to think about it for themselves and sometimes pose to others themselves.#55
I am surprised that preachers like Tradesecret and the Holy Spirit are not coming to his defence. The point you made about education is very valid. But unfortunately Christianity will be overshadowed by Islam which has almost caught up with Christianity in raw numbers.
-->
@Shila
As I wrote earlier on another thread, I do not care if or not the my questions go answered or unanswered.I am happy simply to have asked the question openly, and that could, and sometimes does, cause others to think about it for themselves and sometimes pose to others themselves.#55I am surprised that preachers like Tradesecret and the Holy Spirit are not coming to his defence.
Well in the case of the former I am not at all surprised. Tradesecret is a lying bible dunce at the best of times.
The point you made about education is very valid. But unfortunately Christianity will be overshadowed by Islam which has almost caught up with Christianity in raw numbers.
You have a point. I wonder how long it will be before Muslims start to actually read the Quran for themselves and make their own minds up instead of simply taking the word of their preachers? Meanwhile, the world turns and people are slaughtered for no other reason than the beliefs of others that claim authority.
-->
@Stephen
You have a point. I wonder how long it will be before Muslims start to actually read the Quran for themselves and make their own minds up instead of simply taking the word of their preachers? Meanwhile, the world turns and people are slaughtered for no other reason than the beliefs of others that claim authority.
Islam is self contained. Mohammad was to be the last prophet. Muslims will continue to pray five times a day for more answers.
But Christianity is different.Christians are waiting for the return of Jesus. Who knows what phase two will bring?
Will the Jews accept Jesus’s return as their promised messiah? That might unite Judaism with Christianity and makeup for the deficit against Islam.
Its all faith based belief, Shila.
That is why the preachers and teachers can make up any old shite on the hoof and have gotten away with it so long Some grow to question it while others take a step back and start thinking for themselves. And some soak it all up for various reasons.
-->
@Stephen
Its all faith based belief, Shila.
There is very little for Muslims to fudge. They only worship Allah and believe Mohammad is the last prophet.
What makes Christianity different than Islam?
When asked about the theological differences between Islam and Christianity, Dr. Vila said they “are many and profound. Muslims deny the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Atonement. These are the most important theological beliefs that Christians hold, and Muslims reject each one of them.
-->
@Shila
There is very little for Muslims to fudge.
Well any religion can be fudged and for the reasons I gave earlier.
Is the Quran meant to be taken literally, Shila?
100% humanist, which debunks this little quiz imo, as I have problems with humanism. Instead, this result should mean “atheist, science literate, and emotionally healthy.”
-->
@Stephen
There is very little for Muslims to fudge.Well any religion can be fudged and for the reasons I gave earlier.Is the Quran meant to be taken literally, Shila?
The prophet Mohammad performed no miracles or supernatural events in the Quran.
It can only be read in Arabic.
How does the Quran differ from the Bible?
The Bible was written/received by 40 different authors over 1500 years. Most of the authors didn't know each other and their records are eye witness accounts of event. The Quran was written and received by one person over 20 years. He was not an eyewitness to any of the events.
39% because I am not a complete faggot
-->
@cristo71
What are your problems with Humanism?
-->
@Shila
It can only be read in Arabic.
Well right there is one of those factors that I spoke about above. #70 Where those ignorant and gullible and uneducated Christians are just the kind of people that the Chaplains, Pastors, and Priests rely on.
"only in Arabic", reminds of the Christian that tells me I know nothing about the bible because I do not understand Koin Greek when they have painted themselves into a corner and find themselves "stumped" .
I doubt very much that all 1.8 billion Muslims around the world speak Arabic never mind able to read it, do you?
Is the Quran meant to be taken literally, Shila?
Jesus would of had a way hotter 9 year old missus then Mohammed.
Ouch.
It hurt typing that.
Look im just gonna pass here.
PASS.
Ouch.
It hurt typing that.
Look im just gonna pass here.
PASS.
-->
@Lemming
Ever see those “In this house, we believe: no human is illegal; science is real; love is love; etc” signs? Those are the preachy, virtue signalling signs of humanism. Also:
Projects own values onto others, and not everyone has the same values
Emphasizes collectivism and global oneness over individualism and patriotism
Relies chiefly on government solutions
Detracts from national sovereignty in favor of global oneness
Engenders a “for your own good” paternalism
Engenders a resentment or condescension of the religious
-->
@cristo71
Signs
I haven't seen those, no.
But I can imagine them.
. . . I don't think they're 'bad strategies,
Though I suppose preachiness and virtue signaling can be kind of annoying, in any system.
The value of such I imagine is trying to make change in society or to gain advantage through others admiring your 'virtue.
One 'does hear less often of explicitly evil philosophies and religions having sway over large portions of the population.
I'd imagine Humanists vary in ones that believe in Objective or Subjective Morality.
They do try to take the 'Human as their measuring stick though, we're all human.
Globalism
Detracting from national sovereignty in favor of global oneness,
I'd think would be common in most Isms?
People often look for shared Group identifiers and coalesce,
Arguably it's how one 'gets nations.
. . . Though I suppose some people might still see large differences between different nations/groups.
Communist Countries during the Soviets, still often prioritized themselves I think,
Same with Early Colonial American States I think.
Intervention
I'd suppose Humanists might go for the government intervention, as they might see that as the most practical form of intervention?
Not saying I think or think not that, myself.
Freedom
Individual/Group freedom sounds a big reason for your dislike of it,
And I assume various other Isms that attempt control over society?
I could see how a person who values themself or group highly, might dislike the collective being put over themself.
Though I'd think people could still highly value the collective, yet their own group as well.
'Ideally, I'm hopeful that a number of the laws that apply to many countries, war laws for example, are not done 'purely out of self benefit, but out of appreciation for the 'Other humans as well.
Engender
I suppose Humanism 'might engender resentment or condescension of the religious, but it wouldn't 'have to.
Of course, movements are often discussed on of what they 'currently are.
Not a common encounter for me though, people who identify as Humanists.
I haven't seen those, no.
Here:
And here’s a welcome countersign I just found:
Detracting from national sovereignty in favor of global oneness,I'd think would be common in most Isms?
How so? And if so, what about it?
Arguably it's how one 'gets nations.
Striving for global oneness is how one gets nations? I don’t think so.
I could see how a person who values themself or group highly, might dislike the collective being put over themself.Though I'd think people could still highly value the collective, yet their own group as well.'Ideally, I'm hopeful that a number of the laws that apply to many countries, war laws for example, are not done 'purely out of self benefit, but out of appreciation for the 'Other humans as well.
Humanism is not a prerequisite for international laws of war or for international cooperation. I agree with valuing the collective insofar as it comprises patriotism, as I implied originally.
-->
@Stephen
Is the Quran meant to be taken literally, Shila?
Yes, it was Allah’s revelation to the prophet Mohammad. The Quran was written and received by one person over 20 years. He was not an eyewitness to any of the events.
-->
@cristo71
What of Isms
Well, take Communists, they wanted that International Communism, I think.
Though I think the concept frayed over time, back into nationalism.
The Sino-Soviet split also weakened the concept of monolithic communism, the Western perception that the communist nations were collectively united and would not have significant ideological clashes."
Or take various religions effects,
Us against them, all brothers in the same faith.
Though I stress I think this is common of many 'Isms.
Arguments
My argument though, is I'm not sure such is 'bad, if people share common views, values, laws,
A degree or full forming together of country seems logical.
Though I'm still fairly Clanish myself.
Also why single out that as a reason to dislike Humanism, when it applies to most Isms?
Though I may be stretching with my claim it applies to most Isms.
. . . I suppose Isolationism exists, or Judaism which focuses less on conversion.
Global Oneness
Not striving for global oneness, but striving for coalesce with those of similar values creates nations, I argue.
Humanists I assume argue of shared Human values and goals, and would cite such as their reason for Global Oneness.
. . .
Course, I agree with you I think, that not all humans share the same values and goals.
. . . Some want war for example, and may only cooperate with shared laws for their own benefit, as I think you say imply in #85.
Duty/Intervention
Though the forceful 'helping of others might sometimes be ridiculed, such as how many ridicule The White Man's Burden having an arrogance to it, as well as outright failure in the case of individuals and groups who used it as opportunity to pillage many.
. . . Wanting to help those who are a bit resistant, does not seem wrong in itself.
'How one goes about it, maybe.
Though even then. .
But people often find breaking points with the actions of other people and cultures, even when it is only to their 'own people.
Burning of Widows,
Not bringing your child to the hospital when they look like they are going to die,
Slavery,
Genocide.
-->
@Lemming
But people often find breaking points with the actions of other people and cultures, even when it is only to their 'own people.Burning of Widows,Not bringing your child to the hospital when they look like they are going to die,Slavery,Genocide.
Why do you always highlight the worst in humanity?
-->
@Lemming
Perhaps you understand my issues with humanism; perhaps you do not— it’s hard to tell. When I see you make a point I actually understand yet disagree with, I read on to find you rebutting yourself:
My argument though, is I'm not sure such is 'bad, if people share common views, values, laws,
Course, I agree with you I think, that not all humans share the same values and goals.
To be clear: humanism is not my least favorite worldview— I mean, I’m 100% humanist according to this!— I just take various issues with it as I have pointed out.
-->
@cristo71
I think I understand your issues with Humanism,
Was just curious on your reasons further explored.
I think there are often points on both sides of issues,
Though maybe I rebut myself too much,
Doesn't mean your rebuttals would be the same as mine, or that you would agree with my rebuttals.