A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Prayer request



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #121  
Old June 20th 20, 11:53 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Prayer request

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 14:03:29 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/20/2020 8:40 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7,
wrote:


*SKIP*
Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can
you give me chapter and verse? If you can't, you should admit it's a
cartoon.
Of course its a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning
is the art of getting your point across using the least possible
amount of ink. Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I dont
have a problem with that. And if you cant get past whether or not
God has a beard in order to consider the actual gist of my argument, I
cant help you.


To further delute whatever you've been talking about, it just asks for
an anecdote. Here it goes (it actually quite old, somewhat 25 years
old):

Religous person has died and then has been resurected. Other religous
people have gathered to inquire. First question: "So have you seen
God? What does he look like? Does he actually have a beard or
something?". First answer: "Well, about that. First, she's black".

What, in context of anthropology, makes actual sense.

*CUT*


I like it!


A black person that speaks from a flaming bush?

Think about that for a while :-)
--
cheers,

John B.

Ads
  #122  
Old June 20th 20, 11:58 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
jOHN b.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,421
Default Prayer request

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 11:33:22 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/19/2020 9:14 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 19, 2020 at 5:16:33 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with
certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are
the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in
the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a
slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the
battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris (1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most
solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously
bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to
assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties -
being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live
SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in
a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my
father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is
still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in
which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your
creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the
founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson,
your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the
son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and
state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed.
You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently
implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to
account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on
there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern
mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the
government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand
it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least
killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self
defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least
some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone
murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that
adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores
opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling,
child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would
be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my
religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments
you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that
is pretty much the definition of atheist.

As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken.



And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly
developed moral code than religious people.

On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most
"Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a
wonderful moral code.

On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid
people with no apparent moral standards at all.


Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes.

So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of
uselessness.

If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a
large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or
"believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group.
Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes,
which is a tough job in itself.

Dont look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just dont count
going to church as one of them.

They just have to develop it
from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in
the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if youre not nice to your
fellow man.

I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious
people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person
who literally believes in that cartoon figure.

So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument.

No, its a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament
down to a single phrase.

Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you
give me chapter and verse?

If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon.


Which god? The father, the son or the holy ghost? Ghosts don't have beards, the son DID have a beard, and it's in all of the pictures. The shroud of Turin guy has a beard. From the interweb:

Jesus wore a beard. He followed Jewish law, which prohibited adult males from disfiguring the edges of their beard. (Leviticus 19:27; Galatians 4:4) Also, the Bible mentions Jesus beard in a prophecy about his suffering.?Isaiah 50:6.

Like father, like son, so two out of three gods have a beard. QED. I'm sure there is a 12th century rabbi who proved that Yahweh the uni-god has a beard, and he was very specific about how to trim it.

Try to put up a picture of a clean-shaven Jesus in your church and see how far that gets you.


It's been done. In fact, it was done for several hundred years before
the beard appeared in depictions of Jesus.

http://www.religionfacts.com/jesus/gallery

Also
https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-st...-have-a-beard/

I think we should approach this from another direction, a bike related
direction. Did Jesus ride a recumbent? If not, he probably didn't have a
beard.


Given the Jesus was a Jew and he lived about 2,000 years ago he
undoubtedly had a beard and likely smelled pretty strongly too.
--
cheers,

John B.

  #123  
Old June 21st 20, 12:02 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
JBeattie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,945
Default Prayer request

On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 1:17:12 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2020 2:20 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2020 8:40 AM, Eric Pozharski wrote:
with Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7,
wrote:

*SKIP*
Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can
you give me chapter and verse? If you can't, you should admit it's a
cartoon.
Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning
is the art of getting your point across using the least possible
amount of ink. Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t
have a problem with that. And if you can’t get past whether or not
God has a beard in order to consider the actual gist of my argument, I
can’t help you.

To further delute whatever you've been talking about, it just asks for
an anecdote. Here it goes (it actually quite old, somewhat 25 years
old):

Religous person has died and then has been resurected. Other religous
people have gathered to inquire. First question: "So have you seen
God? What does he look like? Does he actually have a beard or
something?". First answer: "Well, about that. First, she's black".

What, in context of anthropology, makes actual sense.

*CUT*


I like it!


But you’re ****ed when I say that God has a beard and lives up in the sky?


More accurately: I think it's an intellectual copout when atheists say
things like "Believers are fools think there's some bearded man up in
the sky."

It's a straw man argument, and a caricature meant to demean others. It
demonstrates weaknesses in logic and empathy.

--
- Frank Krygowski



Logic? Faith is anti-logic. The meat of the New Testament is just the fab four following Jesus around as he kills fig trees and does other tricks, proving that faith trumps logic. The Old Testament is even worse, but it does have some good recipes and helpful hygiene tips.

And maybe bearded-man is a caricature, but being accurate in this situation is impossible unless you have a snapshot of god. Why not go with Blake's god -- or even George Burns or Morgan Freeman?

-- Jay Beattie.


  #124  
Old June 21st 20, 03:09 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,036
Default Prayer request

On 6/20/2020 5:15 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2020 2:20 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2020 12:19 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2020 10:10 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with
certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are
the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in
the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a
slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the
battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris
(1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most
solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously
bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to
assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties -
being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live
SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up
Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in
a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my
father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is
still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in
which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your
creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the
founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson,
your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the
son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and
state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed.
You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently
implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to
account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time.

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on
there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern
mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the
government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand
it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least
killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self
defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least
some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone
murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that
adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores
opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling,
child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would
be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my
religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments
you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that
is pretty much the definition of atheist.

As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken.



And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly
developed moral code than religious people.

On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most
"Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a
wonderful moral code.

On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid
people with no apparent moral standards at all.


Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes.

So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of
uselessness.

If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a
large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or
"believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group.
Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes,
which is a tough job in itself.

Don’t look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just don’t count
going to church as one of them.

They just have to develop it
from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in
the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your
fellow man.

I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious
people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person
who literally believes in that cartoon figure.

So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument.

No, it’s a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament
down to a single phrase.

Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you
give me chapter and verse?

If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon.

Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning is the
art of getting your point across using the least possible amount of ink.
Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t have a problem with
that. And if you can’t get past whether or not God has a beard in order to
consider the actual gist of my argument, I can’t help you.

It loses a lot in translation, mind you, but it
sort of gets the point across. If God said “There is no heaven and there is
no hell. Here are some rules. I don’t care if you follow them, and I won’t
punish you if you don’t.”, would your moral compass point a different
direction? If so, then fear of retribution is the foundation of your moral
behaviour.

Sorry, your argument is far too binary. Those are not the only two
choices; not even close.

Yes, it’s a very binary argument, but rather than start with a 100 page
treatise on the origins of religion, I chose (for the sake of brevity) to
boil it down to that. My feeling is that organized religion started at the
confluence of “How did we get here?” and “If I invoke some omnipresent
being in the sky, maybe these yahoos might actually do what I tell them to
do.”

You chose to boil the argument down to a mocking cartoon - a cartoon
that atheists frequently use for ridicule.

Your argument lost everything in that "translation," if it actually had
much substance before that.


It’s not like I thought I had any chance of changing somebody’s mind (or
vice versa), so perhaps I didn’t put my full effort behind it. If we can’t
agree on helmet use or disk brakes, what are the odds that we can come to a
universal acceptance on the existence or non-existence of God. Which
reminds me, I stepped out of this thread a while ago for that very same
reason with Andy, and it may be time to do so again with you. I’m sure that
the religious people here have a faith strong enough to withstand whatever
off the cuff arguments I throw out for atheism...

Doubtlessly.

But I'll point out, there's only one person here (the usual suspect) who
seems to have been making arguments in favor of theism. (Others may have
alluded to their beliefs, but done no proselytizing.)

Note that this entire thread started with Andy asking “I ask that you pray
that people will realize that their Creator loves them.”, (which sounds a
bit like proselytizing) in a post asking us to believe in a benevolent God.
When you wave that particular red flag, it’s no wonder that all you flush
out are atheists.


To me, Andy's statement sounded like a request.

Proselytizing is trying to convince others that one's own religious (or
non-religious) viewpoint is the correct one.

If someone, say, posted a link to a website arguing in favor of their
beliefs or non-beliefs, that would be proselytizing. And one
characteristic of various militants - whether related to race, gender,
religion, politics, whatever - is to see any mention of a related issue
as a red flag.

If someone makes a statement actively promoting one side of such issues,
there's nothing unreasonable about a statement from the other side. But
if someone merely mentions such an issue peripherally, it's probably
better to take a deep breath and resist temptation.

Are atheists good at resisting temptation? ;-)


A) After re-reading Andy’s original post, yes, I would consider it
proselytizing. He was making arguments for the existence of God and how we
should pray to said God to intervene on our affairs down here on Earth.


OK, we disagree. This is probably a good time to stop.

B) Are atheists good at resisting temptation? Some days... I don’t see us
as being incredibly different just because we came to different answers to
an unanswerable question.


"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it." - Oscar Wilde


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #125  
Old June 21st 20, 08:19 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Oculus Lights[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 48
Default Prayer request

On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 7:09:53 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2020 5:15 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2020 2:20 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/20/2020 12:19 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2020 10:10 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/19/2020 5:34 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 11:42 PM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/18/2020 6:43 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 3:11:02 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/17/2020 2:48 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, June 17, 2020 at 10:57:18 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Was it recently as "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all
men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with
certain in alienable rights."?

"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are
the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that
God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever." - Thomas
Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia?

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in
the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a
slave." - Samuel Adams, The Rights of the Colonists, 1772?

"God's hand was on me. God protected me and kept me through the
battle." - George Washington

"In the Name of the most Holy and undivided Trinity." - Treaty of Paris
(1783)

"With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most
solemnly before God and the world Declare, that, exerting the utmost
energy of those powers which our beneficent Creator hath graciously
bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to
assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties -
being with one mind resolved to die FREEMEN rather than to live
SLAVES." - Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up
Arms, July 5, 1775

Jay, it does not appear that you could make a very strong argument in
a court of law. After WW II there was such an upwelling of religion that my
father-in-law founded 26 churches himself and every one of them is
still running. You have never seen a bad day in your life, one in
which you had to wonder what you would have to say upon meeting your
creator, so you can pretend he doesn't exist until that day.


Yes, religion was big in the colonial US, but my point is that the
founding fathers created a secular federal government. Jefferson,
your first cited author, was a Deist and did not believe Jesus was the
son of God. Jefferson was the guy pushing for separation of church and
state and was even called an infidel.

Of course, there are various opinions about what Jefferson believed.
You're correct about his thoughts on Jesus, but "Deist" currently
implies some things he probably didn't accept. And then you have to
account for his (like anyone's) changing beliefs over time..

I suppose the whole Sally Hemings thing wasn't too helpful for him either.

I doubt very much that we can ever understand what really went on
there. Relationships are incredibly complex in modern times with modern
mores. They were no less complex back then.

Your religious beliefs are no business of the government, and vice versa.

OK, something I don't quite understand: Among many other "sins," the
government defines murder as being its business. But as I understand
it, there are religious sects that have condoned murder, or at least
killing of certain individuals; and not just in easy cases like self
defense. This has been true in at least some situations for at least
some Christian, Islamic, Hindu and other sects or sub-sects.

But of course, there's disagreement. Most religions do not condone
murder. Some oppose even capital punishment.

So if our government says "You can't murder people," isn't that
adopting a certain religious viewpoint and disregarding another?

We could ask (or could have asked) the same question regarding stores
opening on Sunday, liquor sales, polygamy, some types of gambling,
child marriage, homosexual acts and more.

Isn't "good" vs. "bad" often a judgment based on religious views?

- Frank Krygowski

Frank, I think that you'd agree that my punching you in the mouth would
be bad on your part and that you would hope that it is against my
religious principles which it is. My problem is that from your comments
you do not appear to have any principles beyond your own good. And that
is pretty much the definition of atheist.

As is often - or usually - the case, Tom, you are completely mistaken.



And the funny thing is that atheists can have an even more strongly
developed moral code than religious people.

On one hand, the kindest, most helpful, most charitable, most
"Christian" person I know is an atheist. So yes, an atheist _can_ have a
wonderful moral code.

On the other hand, I know some atheists who are, IMO, absolutely horrid
people with no apparent moral standards at all.


Sure. Everybody gets to have assholes.

So I think the "can" in your sentence is overly lax, to the point of
uselessness.

If we could get the information, it would be productive to sample a
large group of atheists and a large group of religious (or spiritual, or
"believing") people, and examine the moral codes of those in each group.
Look for a correlation. But first we'd have to agree on the moral codes,
which is a tough job in itself.

Don’t look for moral codes. Look for moral behaviour. Just don’t count
going to church as one of them.

They just have to develop it
from first principles, rather than just being told that some bearded man in
the sky will pitch you into a lake of fire if you’re not nice to your
fellow man.

I've found that it's very, very common for atheists to mock religious
people with that cartoon image. But I don't know any religious person
who literally believes in that cartoon figure.

So that tactic amounts to a straw man argument.

No, it’s a convenient conversational shorthand to distill the Old Testament
down to a single phrase.

Hmm. I don't remember the Old Testament mentioning God's beard. Can you
give me chapter and verse?

If you can't, you should admit it's a cartoon.

Of course it’s a cartoon representation. But then again, cartooning is the
art of getting your point across using the least possible amount of ink.
Since this is Usenet and not my PhD thesis, I don’t have a problem with
that. And if you can’t get past whether or not God has a beard in order to
consider the actual gist of my argument, I can’t help you..

It loses a lot in translation, mind you, but it
sort of gets the point across. If God said “There is no heaven and there is
no hell. Here are some rules. I don’t care if you follow them, and I won’t
punish you if you don’t.”, would your moral compass point a different
direction? If so, then fear of retribution is the foundation of your moral
behaviour.

Sorry, your argument is far too binary. Those are not the only two
choices; not even close.

Yes, it’s a very binary argument, but rather than start with a 100 page
treatise on the origins of religion, I chose (for the sake of brevity) to
boil it down to that. My feeling is that organized religion started at the
confluence of “How did we get here?” and “If I invoke some omnipresent
being in the sky, maybe these yahoos might actually do what I tell them to
do.”

You chose to boil the argument down to a mocking cartoon - a cartoon
that atheists frequently use for ridicule.

Your argument lost everything in that "translation," if it actually had
much substance before that.


It’s not like I thought I had any chance of changing somebody’s mind (or
vice versa), so perhaps I didn’t put my full effort behind it. If we can’t
agree on helmet use or disk brakes, what are the odds that we can come to a
universal acceptance on the existence or non-existence of God. Which
reminds me, I stepped out of this thread a while ago for that very same
reason with Andy, and it may be time to do so again with you. I’m sure that
the religious people here have a faith strong enough to withstand whatever
off the cuff arguments I throw out for atheism...

Doubtlessly.

But I'll point out, there's only one person here (the usual suspect) who
seems to have been making arguments in favor of theism. (Others may have
alluded to their beliefs, but done no proselytizing.)

Note that this entire thread started with Andy asking “I ask that you pray
that people will realize that their Creator loves them.”, (which sounds a
bit like proselytizing) in a post asking us to believe in a benevolent God.
When you wave that particular red flag, it’s no wonder that all you flush
out are atheists.

To me, Andy's statement sounded like a request.

Proselytizing is trying to convince others that one's own religious (or
non-religious) viewpoint is the correct one.

If someone, say, posted a link to a website arguing in favor of their
beliefs or non-beliefs, that would be proselytizing. And one
characteristic of various militants - whether related to race, gender,
religion, politics, whatever - is to see any mention of a related issue
as a red flag.

If someone makes a statement actively promoting one side of such issues,
there's nothing unreasonable about a statement from the other side. But
if someone merely mentions such an issue peripherally, it's probably
better to take a deep breath and resist temptation.

Are atheists good at resisting temptation? ;-)


A) After re-reading Andy’s original post, yes, I would consider it
proselytizing. He was making arguments for the existence of God and how we
should pray to said God to intervene on our affairs down here on Earth.


OK, we disagree. This is probably a good time to stop.

B) Are atheists good at resisting temptation? Some days... I don’t see us
as being incredibly different just because we came to different answers to
an unanswerable question.


"The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it." - Oscar Wilde


--
- Frank Krygowski


well, not sure where all the tangents in the thread are heading, it should be pointed out, however, that Jerry Garcia had a beard, Clapton doesn't, and Jimi Hendrix did sometimes.
  #127  
Old June 21st 20, 06:59 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Jeff Liebermann
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,328
Default Prayer request

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 01:09:54 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
wrote:

On Saturday, June 20, 2020 at 9:24:27 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
I
repeated the mistake a few years later by writing a speculative essay
on the politics of Moses, what were the Jews probably doing for 40
years while wandering around the desert, and why they suddenly decided
to organize into 13 tribes and take over most of Israel. Think of it
as an expansion on some early writings by Immanuel Velikovsky.


Velikovsky! My grandmother kept his book COLLISION OF WORLDS by her
bedside, underneath her Bible.


My guess(tm) is she had a vary open mind and was quite willing to
question authority. However, judging by the approximate time
(1950's), she probably didn't discuss Velikovsky outside of her home.

Velikovsky was a mixed bag of contradictions. He was much like George
Lematre trying to reconcile Vatican doctrine with the cosmology of
his time. Velikovsky solve the problem by writing books that were
essentially stand alone, even if they were contradicted in his later
books. Amazingly, that seemed to work, mostly because the
archeologist considered him an amateur and could therefore dismiss his
predictions out of hand, and the supporters of various religions based
on the bible could do the same:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Velikovsky
The book I was referring to was "Ages in Chaos":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_in_Chaos
It was essentially a reorganization of the Egyptian chronology in an
attempt to harmonize it with biblical chronology. Moving the date of
the Exodus was a key part of the book, which is why I mentioned it.
Instead of the powerful Ramses II being the pharaoh at the time of the
Exodus, Velikovsky moved it to the reign of Tutmoses III, a rather
weak pharaoh. Ramses II would never have tolerated Moses's demands or
a slave revolt. Tutmoses III would likely have initially resisted but
later caved in, as described in the Old Testament:
https://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-date-1440bc.htm

Joseph was a carpenter or more likely, considering the tools and
purposes of the trade at the time, a rough joiner, perhaps not
a significant distinction to the scholars who put together the
King James Version.


Ever been to Israel? You won't find many trees, even with
reforestation and swamp draining beginning after WWI. What little
wood was available was mostly used for ship building. The area had
been largely deforested long before Jesus, mostly by the Phoenicians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedars_of_God

The modern interpretation is that Joseph and son were in the stone
masonry business:
https://www.christianpost.com/news/jesus-carpenter-or-stonemason.html
https://opentheword.org/2018/03/26/jesus-a-carpenter-or-stonemason/
Nazareth, being only 3 miles away from a major rock quarry should be a
clue.

But strength would be required, regardless of the split hair. Still,
one wonders, where, in a desert, did the wood he supposedly worked
come from? Solomon imported the wood for the Temple from Tyre.


Mostly the mountains of Lebanon but that didn't happen.

Incidentally, I forgot to mumble something about the temple guards.
One might expect that the area occupied by the money changers would be
as well guarded as a modern bank. It was much too big a target for
thieves to ignore. I would expect the money changers to hire their
own guards, as well as the temple providing guards to insure that the
temple received its allotted share of the profits and to some degree
insuring that the money changers didn't cheat the temple. There were
probably enough armed guards available to take on anyone who was
causing a disturbance. So, why did all these guards do nothing?

Also, you might ask yourself what how many Jews left Egypt and how
many arrived 40 years later invaded Canaan with Joshua? What were
they doing in the desert for 40 years? They would be nuts to return
to Egypt. They weren't strong enough to invade the other neighboring
kingdoms (Moab and Ammon). They wandered around doing what? It must
have been fairly lucrative because they continued to do it for 40
years during which time they broke apart into 13 tribes. What
happened after 40 years of "wandering" to make get 13 tribes
organized, leave the desert, and take their chances on a military
adventure? (To be continued in my next thrilling episode of Exodus
version 2.0).

I'll stop here before the religious riots begin.


I was about to say, "You'll excuse me if I don't stand too near
to you for fear of becoming collateral damage."


Don't worry. You won't catch anything. My keyboard is sanitized, I'm
wearing a face mask, and you are more than 2 meters distant.

--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D
http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
  #128  
Old June 25th 20, 01:50 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Andre Jute[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,909
Default Prayer request

On Sunday, June 21, 2020 at 6:59:25 PM UTC+1, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 01:09:54 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute wrote:

Velikovsky! My grandmother kept his book COLLISION OF WORLDS by her
bedside, underneath her Bible.


My guess(tm) is she had a vary open mind and was quite willing to
question authority. However, judging by the approximate time
(1950's), she probably didn't discuss Velikovsky outside of her home.


Nah, she was authority, and there were several distinguished or at least notorious Rosicrucians among her brothers-in-law.

Velikovsky was a mixed bag of contradictions. He was much like George
Lemaītre trying to reconcile Vatican doctrine with the cosmology of
his time.



[snip]
The book I was referring to was "Ages in Chaos":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_in_Chaos
It was essentially a reorganization of the Egyptian chronology in an
attempt to harmonize it with biblical chronology. Moving the date of
the Exodus was a key part of the book, which is why I mentioned it.
Instead of the powerful Ramses II being the pharaoh at the time of the
Exodus, Velikovsky moved it to the reign of Tutmoses III, a rather
weak pharaoh. Ramses II would never have tolerated Moses's demands or
a slave revolt. Tutmoses III would likely have initially resisted but
later caved in, as described in the Old Testament:
https://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-date-1440bc.htm


The range of your interests never ceases to amaze me, Jeff, and I'm no slouch at being mistaken for a dilettante by men who shortly find me at the head of their esoteric profession and harvesting their clients.

Joseph was a carpenter or more likely, considering the tools and
purposes of the trade at the time, a rough joiner, perhaps not
a significant distinction to the scholars who put together the
King James Version.


Ever been to Israel?


Sure. I went in 1967 and in 1973 I was already in-country for Yom Kippur.

You won't find many trees, even with
reforestation and swamp draining beginning after WWI.


I wouldn't want to start a wood-based industry on the trees I saw the last time I was in Israel, and I doubt there's anything harvestable on an industrial scale even now. But you might make a living in specialty woods. Pearwood, for instance, is valuable in carving and mould making for casting. Lemon wood is used for engraving. I have a small piece of endgrain lemonwood that was a gift from one of my arts materials suppliers when I refused to pay the inflated price and ordered polished copper instead; the small piece they gave me probably ate up their profit from the entire large order. A serious piece of endgrain lemonwood, say a foot square, if such a thing is even to be had, would probably cost more than my press.

What little
wood was available was mostly used for ship building. The area had
been largely deforested long before Jesus, mostly by the Phoenicians:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedars_of_God


That figures.

I'll stop here before the religious riots begin.


I was about to say, "You'll excuse me if I don't stand too near
to you for fear of becoming collateral damage."


Don't worry. You won't catch anything. My keyboard is sanitized, I'm
wearing a face mask, and you are more than 2 meters distant.


Nope, I meant the Aloha Akbars blowing you up for being rude about Hawaii.

Andre Jute
Harmless little old bespectacled intellectual
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A Dog's Prayer Simon Jester UK 0 September 20th 19 09:58 PM
Nativity Prayer of St. Augustine Claire Towny UK 4 December 25th 09 08:25 PM
Chalkbot is as worthless as prayer. Anton Berlin Racing 3 July 8th 09 09:25 PM
A short prayer.... Callistus Valerius Racing 8 June 12th 07 02:46 PM
The Cyclists Prayer Mark Johnson UK 3 March 9th 05 07:24 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.