You sometimes run across this quote from Gandhi:
“I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
Though I must admit this quote annoys me. While it makes a valid point about the behavior of some Christians and a warning to all of us – I find it too dismissive. I don’t mind at all the reminder that I must be more like Christ, a reminder I can always use.
I am glad that he found so many examples of perfect Hindu’s that did not cause him such alarm for his own faith.
One thing the statement is so dismissive of is the various martyrs and saints – the exemplars of the faith – those who truly followed Christ. They are just passed over because of those who don’t as closely follow Christ. Judging anything by the people who don’t exemplify something is a rather poor test. Like judging mathematics based on poor math students.
It also reminds me of one of Chesterton’s quotes:
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.”
Gandhi himself was influenced by the writings of G.K. Chesterton, at least in regards to Indian independence. I can’t speak to Gandhi’s personal rejection of Christianity – I just don’t find his stated reasons very compelling.
For example:
…to be a good Hindu also meant that I would be a good Christian. There is no need for me to join your creed to be a believer in the beauty of the teachings of Jesus or try to follow His example.
Yeah that is why there were so many Hindus there in the streets of Calcutta helping out the poorest of the poor before Blessed Mother Teresa arrived. Plus Gandhi’s statement makes no sense in that he says he can be a good Christian without trying to follow Jesus’s example. That you admit to a beauty of a teaching you won’t follow just displays a nebulous understanding of the truth of those teachings.
54 comments
(((“I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”)))
Jeff, I heard that quote in so many words a long time ago when I was in my late teens but I don’t recall who said it to me but it stuck.
Back then it basically meant to me that Gandhi liked Christ but didn’t really care for his followers.
Thinking that way and remembering that as an altar boy who stole from our church re-inforced the fact that I was no better than they were and so I was determined to do better later.
Long story short, those words of Gandhi changed my world when I started working for our Canadian Government Printing Bureau in the late mid sixtees and back then, we were called “The Queen’s Printer”. Anyway, after I was forced to take a transfer, I decided to not ever be “ONE” of those followers that Gandhi taught were a LOT like me of the past. Let’s basically says that Gandhi hopefully also liked “Jesus” but there were a LOT of people who simply were not like “Christ”?
Anyway call me crazy but in 1970 after having lived in my own world and really not having been that bad, I fell in love and got married and was still searching for Christ or should I just say that I wanted Gandhi to be proud of me. 🙁
I hear ya Jeff! Victor if you’re going to be this long, maybe you should just start your own blog???
Forgive folks for getting carried away but you’re right Jeff and all I can say is that if salvage doesn’t smarten UP, that’s exactly what I will do come September. If you can deal with stuff like this…..
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18142394&postID=6011976398922427486
then the sentence that follows might be easier to understand which goes this way….. New studies show that children nowadays do best when they are raised by their biological parents in a “Stable” instead of with a man and woman who are going through an intact Catholic marriage nowadays. 🙂
By the way, a few more of Gandhi’s quotes can be found here @
http://thinkexist.com/quotes/mahatma_gandhi/
Peace
Jumping the gun on Salvage, who I fear will muse on Mother Theresa’s actions are more than worthy, but that faith is not vital to carrying out such deeds.
Maybe I’m just the littlest nanny goat gruff, ah well. But what do I know?
Catherine Doherty (of Madonna House) when young once met the poet Tagore at a literary party, and asked him why he didn’t become a Christian, and he said: I am waiting for YOU to become one.
What Gandhi said about not needing to join the Christian faith makes sense if you accept a Hindu metaphysics. For them, all of the gods are just masks for the same ultimate reality, the Brahman. I believe that Hinduism’s approach to other religions has the same bent: all religions are different paths to the same Brahman. So in this view it would not matter what particular religion you are, so long as you follow your Dharma, or divine duty.
Of course we Catholics do not believe all paths are equal because Jesus is THE Way, THE Truth, and THE life, not A Way, A Truth, and A Life.
Ghandi created Pakistan.
“Teresa was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only known cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction. ”
I wasn’t a fan of Christopher Hitchens but on the subject of Teresa he was spot on. She didn’t solve India’s problems she feasted on them.
>Yeah that is why there were so many Hindus there in the streets of Calcutta helping out the poorest of the poor
But such arrogance! Yes! Only Christian helped the poor heathen savages, there never was and never will be any sort of Hindu charity because they’re all just vile and greedy! No Jesus in the soul you see.
So when are you guys going to press the Vatican to liquidates the billions they have and give the money to the poor as Jesus clearly suggests in the Bible?
I know, I know, if the Pope doesn’t have a gold throne he won’t be holy and then your god will stop listening to him.
What about the mansion that Dolan lives in? It’s hard to believe he can afford it, what paying all those child rapists off but somehow he manages.
>muse on Mother Theresa’s actions are more than worthy, but that faith is not vital to carrying out such deeds.
Her actions weren’t worthy, she was at best a pawn of awful people and at worst a fanatic that believed pain would appease your angry god.
And if you think you need your god to be a good person, that’s pretty pathetic.
Salvage, I am curious, but could you please define for me what a “good person” is? I would find it very helpful, if you would be so kind.
If you understand the history of India and colonization by “Christians” you’ll understand his quote. I don’t think it was directed against individual Christians trying to live the faith, but the sort of imperialism that used Christianity to promote its ends.
I’ve also always bristled when I’ve heard this quote. It is dismissive in that it ignores the Christian belief that we are all sinners, and all fall short of the glory of God. I don’t remember where I read this, but it has stuck with me: We don’t judge the efficacy of a medical treatment based on those to whom it is prescribed but not followed. Likewise, we should evaluate the efficacy of the Catholic faith based on those Christians who follow its prescriptions most closely. Using that criteria, the Church’s saints show that with faith and obedience, grace and holiness will follow.
CatholicSkywalker
If you don’t know what that is then I can’t help you.
>It is dismissive in that it ignores the Christian belief that we are all sinners, and all fall short of the glory of God.
Strange. This would be the same god that in a fit of anger flooded the planet? Turned its back so Satan could sneak into Eden and mess it all up? Being insanely jealous? Creating a religion that fractured almost instantly and violently for at least 1,700 years? What glory are you talking about? Has anyone ever sinned as much as your god or is killing everyone who angers you a good thing?
Salvage,
But wouldn’t a good person help me understand? I am only asking for a definition. Since you have with great certainty that you do not need God to be a good person, you must know what it is to be a good person. Perhaps what you have in mind when you say “good person” is different than what I have in mind. I wish only to clarify our terms so that we can understand each other and maybe guide one another to the truth.
> I am only asking for a definition.
There’s this thing called Google?
>Since you have with great certainty that you do not need God to be a good person,
So all atheists are bad? What about people with other gods? They’re bad too?
>you must know what it is to be a good person.
Oh I know what it is, you’re the one that seems to be confused.
>Perhaps what you have in mind when you say “good person” is different than what I have in mind.
I’m starting to thinks so, apparently in your mind one must worship a god of some sort to be good. Not sure where you got that nutty idea so you probably should do some research on the subject.
> I wish only to clarify our terms so that we can understand each other and maybe guide one another to the truth.
No, I have stuff like the scientific method and critical thinking for truth guiding and you use Bronze Age and Ancient Roman superstition for yours.
Guess which produces better results?
Hey, is your god good? Cuz it made Satan right? And look what that pesky devil has been up to:
But Bertone’s interview with Famiglia Cristiana took the complaints to a new level, blasting the “vehemence” of some Italian newspapers in seeking to create divisions between the pope and his collaborators where there weren’t any.
“The truth is that there’s a will to create division that comes from the devil,” he said. The interview is due on newsstands Thursday but was made available to journalists Monday.
—–
And what did the Devil make ’em do?
The leaks scandal broke in January when Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi revealed letters from a former top Vatican administrator who begged the pope not to transfer him for having exposed alleged corruption that cost the Holy See millions of euros (dollars) in higher contract prices. The prelate was transferred and is now the Vatican’s U.S. ambassador.
—–
Ah such goodness! Making millions, that was what Jesus said to do right? Something like “”You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the profits from investment and laundering money for the mafia shall be vast! And then we will buy gold plated gates!”
Sure the Vatican could use that money to fix Calcutta but then what would all those nuns do without suffering masses to feed and feed upon? It would be wrong to take away so many opportunities to do good!
I’m with CatholicSkywalker on this. “Good” in the sense of respecting one’s fellow man, in behaving in a responsible manner, in being a worthy member of society should not be that difficult to explain. And I do think asking for such a definition is not rude. Even “Bronze Age superstition holders” are capable of critical thinking, it’s not like Christians never use reason at all. But what do I know?
>“Good” ….should not be that difficult to explain.
Well here’s the thing, Plato had like a whole chapter on the subject, and never really comes up with a satisfactory answer.
I don’t pretend to be able to do better.
>And I do think asking for such a definition is not rude.
Did I say it was? I thought it more pointless then anything.
>Even “Bronze Age superstition holders” are capable of critical thinking,
Absolutely.
>it’s not like Christians never use reason at all.
I think Christians I have met, spoken with, heard of and otherwise feel I know all use reason on everything save religion.
On that point Christians are quite delusional and I think you would agree with me if I said Fred Phelps or the Branch Dravidian or the televangelist who insisted that his god was going to kill him unless his audience gave him lots of money are delusional?
Or at the very least some of them are terribly wrong about what your god wants?
See? That’s one of the flaws of theism, there are so many different kinds! Why would a god like yours, who clearly wants all worshippers, he lists that with murder so he takes it seriously, allow false gods before and after it? Why wasn’t your god worshipped first? It created false competition! What possible sense could that make?
The only answer that makes sense is that none of the gods are real, not yours, not theirs none.
Or tell me why your god is real and all the others fake. I have asked that question here countless times and the closest to an answer I got was that someone had written an answer but it was in a lot of books that I would have to read to understand it.
So show me this Christian reason of which you speak. Show me the reason why over the last 10,000 years mankind has worshipped close to 4,000 separate deities (many of whom claim Creator roles) and countless demigods (that like your Jesus was the union of woman and god) who were ALL fake. All wrong but somehow, Christians have the right one.
If your answer is “Satan did it” (an answer I got in real life one hysterical time) please don’t bother.
CatholicSkyWalker and PandaRosa:
If you think that you can discuss anything with a person whose understanding of Christianity boils down to this:
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/2012/06/the-weekly-benedict-ebook-volume-23/#comment-52895
and whose stubbornness leads to this:
http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/2012/06/the-weekly-benedict-ebook-volume-23/comment-page-1/#comment-52907
keep talking to him. But I agree with others who have decided to quit responding.
Or, to paraphrase from the Bard:
Roberto and Kyle:
Thank you for your insight. I am new to the replies section of The Curt Jester, though I have been reading the articles for many years. I will, of course, gladly continue any rational discourse with anyone here. And everyone on the board will be in my prayers. Thank you for your kind guidance.
Salvage:
I never said that you needed God to be good. I was just asking for your definition of good. I have not yet stated my definition of good, nor have I yet critiqued yours. Socrates would always try to understand the ideas of the people around him before he would argue with them. I am no better than Socrates, so I will follow his model.
Also I would argue that Plato spends more than a whole chapter on the subject of the good. All of his writings are about it. And Aristotle comes up with a very comprehensive definition. Yes, I could google “good,” but that does not help me understand what you have in mind.
PandaRosa:
Thank you for kindly stepping to my defense.
>I never said that you needed God to be good.
So you don’t need gods to be good?
> I was just asking for your definition of good.
Doing good things.
Salvage,
Thank you for your definition. May I please have a clarification on what you mean by “good thing?” Does this mean doing something that benefits yourself? Others? Is it following a duty? Or is it going beyond a duty? Does it involves selflessness? Is the motive important or not?
Yeah, you’ve read The Republic? Well you can take that answer as my own, I doubt I could do better and you seem to be satisfied with it.
Not really sure what this all has to do with the Catholic Church’s action in keeping India rich in babies but poor in every other way.
Now will you answer my questions or will you be ignoring them like most theists do?
They are:
Do you think encouraging India to keep on having babies they can’t feed, cloth, house or take care of is a good thing?
Can people be good with other gods or no gods?
Is your god good?
Salvage,
I will very gladly answer your questions.
But just to be clear, you accept the definition of Plato that the good is “that to which all action are directed?” If that is not the definition you have in mind, please correct me. The reason for my confusion is that both Plato and Aristotle believe that in order for the good to be real, it has to be something non-material. I assumed that your position is materialism (=the belief that nothing exists beyond the material world). Again, correct me if I am wrong. But Plato’s and Aristotle’s definition only works if there is something beyond this world, so I do not understand how you could hold their definition.
No, I do not think encouraging India to keep on having babies they can’t feed, clothe, house, or take care of is a good thing. If my wife and I could not feed, clothe, house, or take care of a child, we would engage in Natural Family Planning, which the Church allows for a serious matter.
People can be moral without God or the gods.
Yes, God is good.
>elieve that in order for the good to be real, it has to be something non-material.
Not sure if I follow what you’re saying here. Nothing non-material exists so yes, of course I’m a materialist, we all are, quite literally.
>But Plato’s and Aristotle’s definition only works if there is something beyond this world
Because why? I’m not getting the connection between that to which all action are directed and the belief in the supernatural.
I’m well aware that they were theists and to be fair they lived in an age when that sort of thing made sense. Also their gods were a lot more realistic than yours.
However I’m not sure why you’re trying to tie their timeless answers that really still leave a lot of questions, as good philosophy usually does, to your god.
So if your god isn’t real the Republic contains no truths?
You’re going to need to fill in the gaps here.
>Natural Family Planning, which the Church allows for a serious matter.
Natural Family Planning? Yes, I believe some highschool friends of mine used that technique. One ended in an abortion and the other marriage that ended in front of a court then later on in jail.
So your solution would be to do something that doesn’t work?
I don’t think that’s much of a solution whereas pills, condoms and education would actually solve the problem.
Because of your religion however you cannot even consider solving the problem.
Ditto with Mother Terressa so the poor keep on having babies and they grow up in a life of misery. But hey India’s pedophile tourism industry appreciates it.
And that’s good is it?
>People can be moral without God or the gods.
Yes, of course but the problem is your god still throws unbelievers into Hell with with all the immoral types so really? What’s the difference? I can be as good a person as you like but at the end of my day when I die your god is going to treat me like deadwood and burn me forever and ever.
Is that good? Your god throwing unbelievers into Hell?
>Yes, God is good.
Really? But your god made evil didn’t it? It made everything right? So it made evil. No, please don’t tell me that the absences of your god is evil with some hot cold analogy, your god is everywhere right? So how can anyplace be absent it? And furthermore since your god made everything it also made the empty places as even nothing is something when you’ve made everything.
And specifically your god flooded the Earth, mass genocide, that was good? How about what he did to Egypt, the story of Passover? He killed innocent people for the crimes of their government. That’s terrorism! And time it sent bears to eat children for mocking a bald man? C’mon! We put people like that in jail.
Good? Even the bad stuff it did?
Trolls will keep trolling, but for the sincere yet open-minded whom might not fully understand: http://flrl.org/NFP_What.htm, specifically this quote:
Regarding Plato and Aristotle, they were clear that the Good Itself cannot be a material thing. Plato would even say that only immaterial things are real. Plato would say that we want no material thing for itself. We always want it as a means to an end. But that end is not a physical satisfaction. The Good has no weight, dimension, color, etc. But he insisted that it was real. It is a universal experience that we all want it.
If the good is that thing to which all our actions are aimed, then it implies that there is an actual object to which we are directed. But that object is not material.
The reason that this makes a difference is that Plato said that a universal standard (The Form of the Good) was above all material things and judges all material things as good or bad.
But if material holds there are no non-material things, then you cannot accept Plato’s definition of the good. If that is so, may I please have a clarification on your definition.
Thank you very much for your comments and questions.
You can’t miss the irony of a culture that despises Monsanto yet so loves chemical or anatomy-altering abortifacients. I want my sexual freedom; damn the psychosomatic consequences! As Chris West paraphrased, our culture is so used to a deficient understanding of “what’s right” that so much perception is the inverse of what it should be.
For the record, Christopher West is awesome: http://www.christopherwest.com/ good stuff.
@Kyle LOL @ you if you think that’s more effective than the pill and double LOL @ you if you think your link has any value. I suspect they may be a wee bit biased even if they were theists.
Theists as I’ve show are adverse to reality so any claims they make must be taken with a Dead Sea of salt.
>Regarding Plato and Aristotle, they were clear that the Good Itself cannot be a material thing.
No, I suppose it cannot itself be a material thing anymore than love, hate and a whole host of metaphysical things.
>Plato would even say that only immaterial things are real.
Yes, he could be a bit of a smart-ass sometimes.
> The Good has no weight, dimension, color, etc. But he insisted that it was real.
Sure, while the Good has none of those things it still has metrics, it can be measured.
Your god and other immaterial things? Not so much.
>It is a universal experience that we all want it.
For ourselves and those closest to us for others far and away from us we are indifferent. See that fits very nicely with evolution and Dawkin’s “Selfish Gene” theory. What it does fit with is your god and this whole Jesus business.
> But that object is not material.
No but it’s results are and those results we measure and that is how The Good can be a real thing without being material.
Unlike your god who has no measurement, no information nothing upon which you can hang the hook of real to.
>But if material holds there are no non-material things, then you cannot accept Plato’s definition of the good.
Nope. As I have explained you can measure good by the results it produces and that gives it reality so I totally can. Just as we know there are planets out there by the way the wobble the star they orbit we know good because of what comes from it.
And that is measurable and thus it is real.
Now I’ve answered a whole mess of your stuff please answer mine.
Why is your god real and Plato’s which was not yours but rather a Greek pagan one fake / unreal / made up / myth / whatever?
Why can your god only travel where its followers go? Like why did Jesus only appear in Israel to a tiny sliver of people? Why not in North and South America? Australia? Your god seemed to miss whole continents! Did it only like talking first to Middle Eastern then only Europeans?
>You can’t miss the irony of a culture that despises Monsanto yet so loves chemical or anatomy-altering abortifacients.
Yes! Because those things are related! And the only women who get abortions hate GMF! Every single one of them hypocrites!
Once again Kyle, it’s this thing called freedom, either you have it or you do not. It’s a woman’s body to do with as SHE pleases. If she wants to chug malt liquor while jumping out of a plane into a tank of sharks for YouTube hits that’s her problem. Just like having an abortion, it’s none of your business.
And no, a fetus is not a child, its’ a fetus. That’s why we have two different words for two different things.
That’s the whole argument, there’s nothing more to it, there is nothing more needed. That’s why it’s legal.
The end you deeply silly person.
Oh troll, where is thy sting?
Jeff: I’m unsubing for a while. I love the work you do but I can not comprehend why you let this schizophrenic troll activity continue unabated. God bless you in all your efforts.
Dear Salvage,
As a parting gift, let me suggest you to read Job, chapters 32 – 42:1-6 for some radical awesomeness. No need to respond. God bless.
N.L.
Salvage,
What are the metrics of the good? How do you measure it?
Plato, it seems, did not believe in the pagan gods as did many in his day. He appears to be closer to his master, Socrates, who believed that there could only be one God. Be that as as it may, Plato believed in the form of Goodness Itself as that reality from which all good things get their goodness and all things are directed towards as its ultimate good. I don’t disagree with Plato. I believe that this has to be true as well. Today we commonly call Him God.
I am confused by the word “only” in your question. Because I walked into my house earlier, it does not therefore logically follow that I can only enter my house. That Jesus was incarnate in Israel does not necessitate that He could not go to other places. If you ask why does He only incarnate in Israel, I would ask why not?
Dear Salvage,
Sorry, forgot to mention where to find the New American Bible translation of above. Goodle “USCCB”; click “Bible”; click “Books of Bible”; click Job.
Or http://www.usccb.org/bible/books-of-the-bible/
Good reading to you. N.L.
>What are the metrics of the good? How do you measure it?
Happiness, positive results, productive growth, pleasure, joy etc. Stuff you would call good.
Are you going someplace with this twaddle?
>Plato, it seems, did not believe in the pagan gods as did many in his day. He appears to be closer to his master, Socrates, who believed that there could only be one God.
Not your god, not even close to your god, thus a Pagan god as real as Zeus right?
> Today we commonly call Him God.
Nope. The creature you call god is from a whole separate thing from what Plato talked about. Remember they were all about logic and reason and your god is anything but. I wonder what Plato would think of your god demanding foreskins.
> That Jesus was incarnate in Israel does not necessitate that He could not go to other places.
Yeah, but he didn’t. He stayed in one place and did all his miracle stuff to a select few.
>If you ask why does He only incarnate in Israel, I would ask why not?
Could have avoided a lot of bloodshed for one? Removed any doubt of his divinity? Y’know, stuff that a god who wants worshippers would do but oddly enough your god doesn’t seem to do much to convert people who have never heard of it. Hasn’t your god noticed marketing? It created the stuff! Or was that one of Satan’s?
But no god ever does that! They always stay in a corresponding geographic area, only spreading when their believers move. Surprisingly lazy things gods are.
And well done! You didn’t answer any of my questions beyond asking a question back!
Very typical of theists. Let’s do it some more:
Hey Noah’s Ark, did that really happen?
How did Satan sneak past your god into Eden?
Why do you say that Jesus sacrificed himself when all he did was be “dead” for three days? Sure he was killed in a bad way but the Romans did far worse to far more so not all that special and those other victims didn’t get to come back to life then fly off to Heaven to rule the universe. So what did he sacrifice?
Did you know that the first Holy War in North Africa was Christian on Christian? It’s an awesome story and I think HBO should make it into a mini-series. You have two Pope stabbing each other in the back and it all leads to an awful war. Which side do you think your god was cheering on? Did Jesus plan his church to be this crazy den of intrigue, greed, violence and child molestation? Or was it an accident?
Either way was it a good thing this Holy See?
@NiceLady Ah yes, the story of Job, South Park did a wonderful riff on it, I won’t post the link but you should watch it for my response.
I would just ad how bizarre it is that you worship a god that makes pointless bets with evil. Your god is all knowing so would know exactly how loyal Job would stay. I would assume that Satan would have known this too. Yet they went ahead anyway!
I don’t know why you would think such a story “awesome” or inspirational, it’s sick and twisted and its only redeeming quality is that it makes no sense and isn’t true.
This is awesome:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/University_of_Florida_astronomer_reports_rare_case_of_gravitational_lensing_999.html
And it wasn’t your church or your Jesus that found it but science and reason and logic. When you guys can do cool stuff like this by praying or reading an ancient book of myths then you might have a case.
Till then you’re very silly.
Salvage,
Happiness is a wonderful answer. It is the answer that Aristotle gives. I believe we are now making progress at understanding one another.
Now, what is it that makes us happy?
Also, could you define “positive results?” That would be very helpful to me.
Forgive me for answering a question with a question. I think I picked it up from the Rabbinical tradition. I remember the joke where one day a man became frustrated with the Rabbi for always answering a question with a question. He asked, “Why do you always answer a question with a question?” To which the Rabbi responded, “Why not answer a question with a question?”
But to clarify, the answer is that He did not have to go only to Israel. He chose to.
I am also confused about your rejection of Plato’s Form of the Good as being the same as God. Thomas Aquinas said that Reason cannot contradict Faith. If faith contradicts something in right reason then that faith has to be incorrect. Now Thomas obviously saw no contradiction between the Catholic Faith and Reason.
Do you believe in the Form of the Good?
We obviously cannot yet agree on the Goodness of God, but I want to see if we agree on the reality of Ultimate Goodness.
Wishing you happiness…
So that would be you’re not going to answer my questions?
See that’s what makes theists the silliest of things, you believe all crazy stuff that clearly isn’t real to be so and when pressed to explain you just whistle by.
As if somehow the glaring absence of an answer wouldn’t be noticed.
I know why won’t answer of course, to do so would to admit an inconvenient truth about theism and truth and theism simply no not get along.
Well I’ll answer them for you.
>But to clarify, the answer is that He did not have to go only to Israel. He chose to.
I know and that makes no sense for reasons I pointed out, you ignored those points, why?
The actual answer is there are no such things as gods, they are made up by people and people can only go where they go ditto their religions. If there was a real god with power its religion would be supreme, there would be no competition.
>I am also confused about your rejection of Plato’s Form of the Good as being the same as God.
I know you are, theists love to try and hook their god onto other stuff, be it philosophy or science or anything else real. Of course gods not being real they don’t stick.
>Now Thomas obviously saw no contradiction between the Catholic Faith and Reason.
Of course not, if he had the Church would have burnt him alive.
You know that right? Your church used to torture and kill people for your religion? Now a day they only aid in the rape of children and the protection of pedophiles so I suppose that’s progress… of a sort.
So your good god, when its priests where shoving red hot pokers up the anuses of Jews was it watching? Cheering it on? Yelling “Make that Jew love me!”? The priests that did the torturing, they’re in Heaven now I suppose having done your god’s work?
And that’s good is it?
Salvage,
I apologize if it appeared that I ignored your points. The reasons you gave were to the question of why Jesus only is incarnate in Israel. My answer is to that is simply, “I don’t know.” I leave that to God and His wisdom.
You jump to a conclusion too quickly from “Jesus is incarnate only in Israel” to “There are no gods.” You are missing a major or minor premise. Now you conclusion may, in the end, be true, but this particular argument does not prove anything.
Also, by your statement on Thomas, are you saying that the Church accepts the authority of Reason? Because if so, then we agree.
But let us not be distracted:
What are the metrics of the good?
What do “positive results” mean?
Wishing you happiness…
>I apologize if it appeared that I ignored your points.
No, it doesn’t “appear” you are ignoring them, that’s okay, theists always do when you get to the specifics of their superstitions and beliefs. You’re nothing special in this regard.
>. My answer is to that is simply, “I don’t know.”
Ah, finally, fair enough. Do you think it made sense that your god only appeared to a tiny fraction of humanity while claiming to rule it all? Bit of an absentee landlord your god.
>I leave that to God and His wisdom.
“Ours it not to reason why!” Subservience, yes your church does breed that attitude, it’s how it gets away with raping children. That’s one of the reasons why the Vatican hates science, democracy and emancipation of women, anything that empowers the individual is deadly to theism.
>You jump to a conclusion too quickly from “Jesus is incarnate only in Israel” to “There are no gods.”
I don’t think I do. Your god’s limited range is typical of all gods. Just as Jesus couldn’t get out of the Middle East and parts of Europe the Aztec’s gods couldn’t get across the ocean.
It’s just one of the many clues that make it quite clear gods are man-made constructs. Real gods would be everywhere. The ancient Romans had a clever work around for that conundrum but when you have an omnipotent god that just doesn’t work.
>You are missing a major or minor premise.
Am I? What?
> Now you conclusion may, in the end, be true, but this particular argument does not prove anything.
Sure it does, it shows that your god’s power is deeply limited. It commands that everyone should worship it in the same list that says people shouldn’t kill each other so we can assume it takes it as seriously yet it does nothing to ensure worship beyond its believer’s borders and limitations.
What other conclusion can one make other than it’s not real? A coy god makes no sense and things that make no sense are generally untrue.
>Also, by your statement on Thomas, are you saying that the Church accepts the authority of Reason?
Oh gosh no! The Church only accepts its own authority, they’ll only accept reason when there is no other choice (evolution is a good example). Left to its own devices the Vatican would still be setting people on fire for saying the Earth goes around the sun.
>What are the metrics of the good?
Already answered.
>What do “positive results” mean?
Results that are positive.
I’m not going to address this “good” blather unless you answer some of my questions or just get to the point. I know one technique theists like to use is “mushing” that is deconstructing reality to a grey nebulous goo where nothing is real or defined therefore Jesus!
Were the Crusades good? Was your god cheering the French Knights as they raped and pillaged their way to Istanbul? How about the various Reformation Wars? Were they good? Was your god smiling on the Protestant burning? Did he then send them to Hell for some more?
As Ms Manners has said, “When dealing with those who truly don’t seem to understand the tried and true conventions of civil discourse, one must occasionally be painfully blunt.”
Salvage, you are massively self-centered! That also makes you colossally ignorant! With all your learning and education, you have no capacity to synthesize all that knowledge into a consistent whole view that you are so sure about and comfortable with that you would find no need of disparaging others’ views, but instead could go outside of yourself and share objectively. You’re like a man wandering in the desert, dying of thirst, who won’t stop and drink from a watery oasis not of his own making.
Please, show a little respect and consideration for others in what should be civil discussions on the very meaning of life.
Proverbs 23:9 Do not speak to a fool, for he will scorn the wisdom of your words. Matthew 7:6 Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
With this one, I would say that you should just shake the dust off your feet in testimony against salvage and move on! Mark 6:11
>Salvage, you are massively self-centered!
Not really but what have I said here that makes you say so?
>That also makes you colossally ignorant!
Really? What’s the connection?
> find no need of disparaging others’ views,
Well I do disparage the view that there is such things as magic and that myths are true. I could list a dozen examples of this that you would agree with, like you don’t believe that the Aztecs god ate the sun and it only came back because they made human sacrifice do you? And if you told someone who believed that would you be “colossally ignorant” and “self-centered”?
See this is the bit that you clearly don’t understand or at least refuse to acknowledge; whatever I say about your god here you could say about every other god there is. It’s only because that it’s your god that I’m going on about that you get upset.
> You’re like a man wandering in the desert, dying of thirst, who won’t stop and drink from a watery oasis not of his own making.
No, I am like a man walking through a desert coming across some people drinking sand and asking me why I don’t join them in quenching thirst.
“That’s sand!” I say
“This is clean drinking water, so refreshing!” they reply.
“No, look,” I take some sand, I run it through my hands in front of them. “It’s sand, it’s not water, it’s a mirage! From a distance it looks like water but of the way light bounces from actual water to the sky and back to the ground but it’s not water.”
“Hmmm water.” they say “Why don’t you have some?”
I then take out a kiln, superheat the sand and blow it into a glass right in front of them “Look! You can’t do that with water, you can only do that with sand.”
They take the glass, hold it for a moment, grab a handful of sand, pour it into the glass, takes a long drink and says ‘Delicious water!”.
I then keep on walking, laughing softly contemplating the evolutionary value of such single minded delusion and denial.
Salvage,
Hmm…
How about this: I will concede, for the sake of argument, the entire Christian Faith to you. In fact, for the sake of argument, I will concede all of theism. Since you say you understand theists and you know that we are wrong, I will assent in this dialogue to all of your points about the fiction of the Bible and the irrationality of all religions.
In our dialogue I will surrender and admit that you have won.
Now, having now left theism in our arguments, I seek to understand what it is I should believe. I ask you to be my teacher and I will be your student. I will not critique any of your assertions until I understand them.
So please to clarify:
What are the metrics of happiness? (I wrote “goodness” in the last post and you were correct, you had answered this already). What I mean is: how do I measure my morals by happiness? Morality, you would agree, is about how we should act? How do I apply the guiding principles of my actions to happiness?
Second, what are “positive results.” You said that they are results that are positive, but you have only given me a tautology. Your definition is the term, but that doesn’t help me understand.
Thank you in advance for helping me understand truth.
Wishing you happiness…
>Now, having now left theism in our arguments
I lose all interest.
Salvage,
But I still find your thought system fascinating.
Please teach me. Or by your silence do you tell me that you do not have a rational basis for your positions, which I’m sure cannot be the case for someone who values Reason.
What are the metrics of happiness?
What are “positive results?”
Wishing you happiness…
S,
The oasis is that place you are invited to come and refresh yourself with civil discussion. No litmus test of faith required – just a mutual and polite respect for your fellow humans.
As I have explained I have nothing but respect for you as people, I have nothing but respect for your absolute right to think and say whatever you want and I have nothing but respect for your right to worship whatever crazy go you like.
However I have absolutely no respect for theism in general (it’s a very silly thing) and even less for anyone who thinks the Vatican is anything more than corrupt and vile.
Now I don’t hold these negative opinions for arbitrary reasons, I think in this thread I have shown some of the silliness of your religion (Noah’s Ark, I mean c’mon!) and the sheer awfulness of the Vatican (Mother T’s Keep ’em Prego and Poor because her god loves misery insanity).
And you worship a god that is going to throw me into Hell to be tortured forever and ever because I don’t think as you do. Can you show me the respect for human beings in that please?
(((And you worship a god that is going to throw me into Hell to be tortured forever and ever because I don’t think as you do. Can you show me the respect for human beings in that please?)))
The ball is in your court LORD GOD so please deal with “IT” cause YOUR TIME is not our Time.
Come on “Jesus The Christ” you’re the only “ONE” in three persons and dare me, myself and i say four person NOW cause my 7% Jesus theist Cells have accepted Your Heavenly Mother in our family so God when you do look into salvage’ heart please remember that he also is only flesh, bones and blood and that’s how YOU GOD (Good Old Dad) have created U>S (usual sinners) or do we simply accept everything science tells U>S and follow what guys like http://www.cbc-network.org/2012/06/peter-singers-views-deserve-scorn-not-awards/ tell U>S because like salvage says, YOU don’t really exist?
Lord Jesus, we really are not out to provoke YOU, we humans just want an answer that our hearts and brain cell minds can accept until The Judgement Day come.
Again “I” say please help U>S out a little here! Pretty Please and while You’re at “IT” could you let U>S know who salvage real identity really is? 🙂
God Bless,
Peace
Peace.
P.S. Father please don’t be too hard on salvage cause he doesn’t mean any harm and by the way could YOU manage in some way to tell U>S who he and/or she really is.
Peace