evil is subjective based on ones perception.
moral relativism.
a fundamentalist struggles with three basics:
1.original sin
2.creation as put forth in genesis
3.the resurrection

the fundamentalist does not struggle in the beliefs of these three things but rather they struggle to defend them,because all three are easily vivisected.
what most free-thinking people have a hard time comprehending (understandably so) is why a fundamentalist will continue to defend these three in particular when the evidence is overwhelmingly the opposite.
put quite simply..they have to.
to accept even the remotest possibility that any of these tenants might be incorrect is tantamount to refuting god because to them the bible is the UN-ERRING word of god.
for example:to accept evolution is to say the book of genesis is wrong and to a fundamentalist these equates to saying god is wrong.so they are forced to defend a book that is in actuality a metaphorical representation of kabballah.genesis is about creation just not in the literal sense that fundamentalist comprehend it to represent.

christianity can be broken down in to three basic categories:
1.liberal=catholic,episcopalian,methodist etc etc
2.evangelical=pentacostal,baptist (not all baptist btw)
3.fundamentalist=southern baptist,church of the nazerene,7th day adventist

the liberal christian believes in jesus christ and the resurrection.they believe in heaven and hell (abstractly at least).they view such books as genesis as allegorical but not historical and view other biblical books as metaphor and glean what wisdom they can based on their own understandings.they will accept another as christian as long as that person beleieves jesus is christ and he died for their sins.

the evangelical is part fundamentalist and part liberal.they change their view in accord with the situation but the most important part of an evangelical christians life is to spread the word of salvation.to spread the word of christ to all who will listen.

the fundamentalist is an all-together different animal.the bible is the un-erring word of god..end of discussion.while they spread the word of god and the salvation and grace afforded us by the death and resurrection,they will also perceive any questioning in a negative manner of their belief in the infallible bible as a personal attack upon themselves and will respond in kind (wrapped in false humility).they are commanded to save your soul and they will engage in this venture with vigor and gusto but when met with resistance they will become agitated and confused.
to them they are sharing the word...they are offering you salvation and if questioned,mocked or refused they become baffled at first.
why would anybody refuse or question pure love and forgiveness?
refuse peace of mind and a calm,joyful heart?

philosophical musings concerning the nature of morality and good and evil aside,to a fundamentalist there is only black and white.either it came from god or the satan did it.now they may rationalize this in a many number of different ways but in the end it always comes down to that basic equation and for those of you who know religious history you understand the vast number who were slaughtered,maimed,tortured and outright murdered due to that infantile approach.that highly destructive approach is what helped usher in the christian reformation and is why people are no longer forced to accept the churches edicts or christians killing other christains for not being "the right kind of christian".the fundamentalist has no problem pointing to another christian and accusing him/her of being false (isnt that right shiny?)because the fundamentalist need only refer to the bible to exact his/her judgment of another.the fundamentalist will also retreat to the most intellectually ineffective place when faced with constant opposition:satan

so when engaging with a fundamentalist understand that your continued perceived attacks on that fundamentalists biblical understandings and your unwillingness to accept that jesus christ is lord and died for your sins...well..then you are damned and have been deluded by satan.you have been tricked by the most indominable trickster and while the fundamentalist may pray for you..to them you are damned to an eternity of punishment and sorrow.because that is the last and only place a fundamentalist can retreat to...satan did it and satan has corrupted you.may the lord have mercy on your soul.the bible is truth incarnate to them and everything else is a lie brought upon this earth by satan.

this is why i do not engage with a fundamentalist.for anything i postulate that may be construed as being in conflict with biblical teachings will immediately be rejected and despised and if i continue then it is ME that will be rejected and despised..as an agent of satan.(but they will pray for my soul..thank you for that mr fundamentalist).

this is the reason why we see so many fundamentalist attempting to disprove evolution or prove the truth of the bible being historically accurate.
they have to..to do otherwise would mean reject god.

i am not going to downvote this video but i refuse to upvote either.
good luck shinyblurry in your attempts to educate the masses on the truth.

I'd hardly say he is a joke. He's still a formidable player, if he gets his emotions more in check, he would be even better. He calls games quick, and often right (if you've seen his guest casts on NASL), but when he calls it wrong he should spend some time verifying it and stick with it like SlayerS_BoxeR does.
>> ^Jinx:

Oh, and yeah, Eyedra is the wrong pronounciation. Artosis has a habit of scrambling peoples Ids, just ask LiquidTyler
The followup to this game is that Idra then lost the next game, and then lost 4 in a row in the losers bracket to his rival MC. Having been 4-0'd you'd think he'd find the humility to lose graciously, but nope, complaining about race imbalance to the last. Its sad, even though Idra is one of, if not the strongest player outside Korea he is considered a joke because of his attitude.
For those that play SC but don't really follow the competitive side that much, I URGE you to watch the next MLG when it comes around at the end of July. The atmosphere at this event was electric, you can hear the crowd on this video, and it made the whole thing quite amazing to spectate. Normally I can't stomach more than a hour or two of watching other people play videogames, but I spend the entire day watching MLG, so yeah, check it out. If you don't play SC then yeah, it prolly is just confusing and uninteresting...so go buy Starcraft2 and join the club

Oh, and yeah, Eyedra is the wrong pronounciation. Artosis has a habit of scrambling peoples Ids, just ask LiquidTyler

The followup to this game is that Idra then lost the next game, and then lost 4 in a row in the losers bracket to his rival MC. Having been 4-0'd you'd think he'd find the humility to lose graciously, but nope, complaining about race imbalance to the last. Its sad, even though Idra is one of, if not the strongest player outside Korea he is considered a joke because of his attitude.

For those that play SC but don't really follow the competitive side that much, I URGE you to watch the next MLG when it comes around at the end of July. The atmosphere at this event was electric, you can hear the crowd on this video, and it made the whole thing quite amazing to spectate. Normally I can't stomach more than a hour or two of watching other people play videogames, but I spend the entire day watching MLG, so yeah, check it out. If you don't play SC then yeah, it prolly is just confusing and uninteresting...so go buy Starcraft2 and join the club

I defend hackers and support their protests on the most part. Can we leave Sony alone now though, they've learned their lesson why not teach Facebook some humility?

>> ^treat:

>> ^BoneRemake:
Savage backwards people, at least they are a step above Christians.

Atheists, Christians and cannibals each fervently adhere to what they believe to be objective reality in this stupid, confused existence they pretend to understand. Only difference is the cannibals are actually remotely humble about it.


Humility is knowing that you could be wrong and seeking tangible evidence to support your position. That's science.

Which of the three groups you listed actively seek out tangible evidence, and which simply regurgitate what others told them and run it through their minds on a loop in order to support their untenable position?

The cannibals and Christians project a false humility while clinging to empty superstitions, but they are actually too prideful to admit they might be wrong about what they believe. Of course I'm only assuming that the cannibals are doing that. I could be wrong about them.

I do believe that, in fact, I felt pretty much the same way when I was agnostic. I didn't believe He was God, but His words spoke to my heart about how human beings should treat eachother. I never had a problem with Christ..to me, He was certainly of the very best that humanity had produced, before or since..and I have yet to read an account of anyone who comes close.

To me what Christ taught leads to perfection of the human character. He teaches more self-denial than even buddhism, total humility of person, equal treatment for every human, and love for your fellow man, without any exception. He taught us to forgive one another, to harbor no grudges, to work things out and come to an angreement.

If people followed what Christ taught we would have no wars, there would be no violence..there would be no poor, no starvation, no inequality. There would be no hatred, no lies, no injustice. The Earth would be at peace. That's gotta be worth something. I wouldn't understand someone who could look at that and take nothing from it.

I believe all His ways lead to life. Abudent life..and I have seen the results. Christ was a humanist too though, because He came not for His own sake but for all people. He died, whether you believe He was divine or not, for us. That was His mission as He saw it and that's what He did. The only real question is whether He is risen, or not. If He didn't rise, then I am a fool. If He did, it proves everything He said. I think that's really the only practical way His claims could be evaluated, if His resurrection is a historical event.


>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
Sadly, he's right. I was fairly astonished that so many Christians didn't see anything wrong with celebrating someones death, Bin Laden or not.
I think you'll find a great many atheists who do subscribe to the sort of philosophy Jesus preached. Just because we don't think he was divine doesn't mean we think he was wrong. He had some good ideas; revolutionary ideas for his time; and his origins don't change that.

sighs..
/doublefacepalm
this is becoming....tiresome.
i came to the decision to stop being a snark towards shinyblurry because his tone had softened a bit and he appeared more willing to interact in a more human and engaging way.
since he stated he had been studying for years (specifically what he never states) i put forth a few questions.
i put a lot of thought in to those questions.
not to be an ass,or pull a gotcha nor even to be "right" but rather to hear his response.
the questions were really not that important but his answers would reveal much on how he viewed certain dilemmas facing todays evangelical christian.
and since he says he has studied for years i framed the questions with tidbits and items a first year seminarian would know and would have already dealt with.
i now suspect that when shinyblurry says he "has studied for years" he means personal study.
nothing wrong with that.
thats how i did it too for many years and then was blessed to meet one of the most amazing people who decided to mentor and teach me..dr paul.

@smooman
you totally missed the point of my post.
i was not attempting to prove the existence of these resurrection deities and by proxy disprove jesus.nor did i gank that from zeitgeist..so lets not get derailed.
the question was how does shinyblurry resolve this issue?
his answer was "satan did it".
now that answer from an evangelical perspective is expected but from an intellectual one it is weak.
i am NOT being an ass here,just pointing out what should be obvious.
"satan did it" is a cheap and lazy way out.

@shinyblurry
the questions i asked were conundrums.
you have to think your way through them...not dismiss out of hand.
you have focused on zoraorastrian.
posted links to pages.
may i just say up front that i am not interested in someones elses research nor their conclusions but rather very interested in yours.
my point bringing up zoraorastrian was to illuminate the fact that the bible has been influenced by MANY different and sometimes conflicting theologies,and written by many different authors.
thats why i mentioned gilgamesh.
does the fact that so many authored the bible take away from the its beauty?literature? wisdom?
not at all,but it does paint a picture that is far more human and i was curious how you resolved that issue being an evangelical.
you did answer.."satan"..(i really find that answer unsatisfactory btw)...but you did not say how you resolved that issue.unless "satan" is your true answer and in that case.ok..fair enough.

you never answered which school of theological thought you adhered to (you made me guess).
nor did you answer if you were a preterist.
which is just somebody who believes that messianic prophecy has already been fulfilled.(you wont find any these days.2000 yrs ago you would have though).
this question was in relation to how christianity has evolved over the centuries.
now my question concerning the nicean creed is actually a trick question because it has never been resolved.
325 a.d and the nicean creed was the third attempt and the council decided to stick with it but it never really resolves the trinity.because of this theological failure of the elder council millions over the years have perished and not a small reason chirtianity began to fracture in to smaller subsets...all gaining (and losing ) and gaining again prominence in the christian world.

the questions i asked would reveal if shinyblurry has limited his studies to the 66 books of the KJV or if he has expanded his studies.
again..not for a gotcha moment nor to belittle him, but rather so i would have an idea the parameters in our discussion.

i read the gospels far different than mainstream christianity.
i study origins.
i study the socio-economic and education of that period of time.
the cultural practices and institutions.
when you put all these factors together you gain a much more insightful and complete picture.
i guess i dont understand when someone ignores that very vital part of the equation.
hence my questions.
i wanted to know how shinyblurry dealt with these dilemmas or if he thought of them at all.

living in the bible belt i deal with evangelicals all the time.
in fact i spoke at a local baptist church a few weeks ago.
my sermon was "the mechanics of prayer".they were welcoming and responsive,conversely i have also been told by another group of evangelicals that i will burn in the pit of fire because my idea and understanding of scripture happened to be different from theirs.

i do not understand how some people conflate their religion as themselves.
as somehow they ARE their religion and if their religion comes under any criticism or scrutiny they react like it is THEY who are being personally attacked and lash out with violent intentions (disguised as righteousness).
religion is a system of doctrine and dogma with written scripture as a vehicle.
since scripture is the written word, it is tangible and therefore subject to scrutiny and/or criticism.
and thats how it SHOULD be.i do not know ONE theologian who would disagree with that statement but i have encountered hundreds who feel that ANY scrutiny of their holy text is tantamount to a personal attack upon them.

i was unsure if blurry was a troll or if he was even aware that he was coming across like one.
i am still not sure.
i was ok with making snarky remarks and match blurry tone for tone.until i realized i was behaving poorly and nothing positive would really come out of that form of interaction...maybe amusement for a time.
so i decided to take a different approach and all i got was more of the same.
sad..really.
what a wasted opportunity.
my expectations for this discussion have dwindled considerably.
religion is communal..
faith is personal.
i guess mine is so far removed from shinyblurry's that we are incapable of having a decent discussion with each other.

so there it is folks.as openly and as honestly as i am able.
with sincerity and humility i say this to you shinyblurry.
namaste.

I used to hold the idea that religion is control by way of fear for a long time but I don't anymore. The thing is that, it wasn't until monotheistic religions came on the scene that the fear and guilt aspect of religion showed up. Before the monotheistic religions, most beliefs didn't even have an afterlife that anyone could obtain.

For the better part of human history, the gods were arbiters of earthly events that we found to be larger than ourselves. The ocean was seen as a god, the sky was seen as a god. It's only been in the last 1700 years that fear and guilt have been used as control mechanisms.

I know we've talked about this before but why shouldn't you judge people for the path that they're on. Surely if it were something extreme like murder or rape, you would judge them regarding that path, why should judgement be limited to only extreme examples?

I contend that if you really care about having as many true beliefs and as few false beliefs as you possibly can, you'll be weary of subjectivity and subject every bit of information that you believe to be true or that might be new to you with the rigors of extreme objective scrutiny. Why would you want to believe something that you can objectively verify that isn't true.

Here's the think about your paragraph on faith. It isn't arrogance if you are correct. Truth can be found objectively and objectively discovered truth is the only kind that matters. The first question that should come from discovering something subjectively is "how do I know that I'm not delusional?", or "How do I know that I can trust my senses?" Faith can be derived from subjective beliefs, and to me, because of that fact, I see faith as the most self-centered and egotistical thought process in existence. It favors the methods of the individual as being more potent in discovering truth than the rigors of objective verification. It makes the statement "I am important and trust worthy enough to make conclusions based on my limited perception of reality and therefore my conclusion is equally valid to contending views."

The nature of intellectual debates where two people hold two opposing ideas is that one person is correct while the other is incorrect, or they are both incorrect. Isn't it more important to present all of your ideas with other person in order to discover what is correct, or to at least discover that neither are correct?

To be honest, I find that the kind people who think that proclaiming truth is the height of arrogance, don't actually know what it means for something to be objectively true. I find that those people have a wishy-washy outlook on belief in the way that everyone beliefs are equally valid. The creedo being "I have beliefs that are good for me and you have beliefs that are good for you therefore we are equal". I find that kind of view childish in the way that it seems like it's trying to be overly equally. Some beliefs are true, some beliefs are false, and some beliefs are not true (being that they are misinformed or something similar).

If someone believes that 2+2=5, is it arrogance to tell them that they're belief is false?

In reply to this comment by enoch:
religion is control by way of fear.
they pretend to be the gatekeepers and the ONLY people with the key to get through.
this is utter bullshit (try telling a fundamentalist that though....oh wait).
to me evolution and natural selection are more in line with my understanding of a creator than say:adam and eve,gilgamesh or mithra.

my understanding of a creator and my connection to that creator also allows me..in fact compels me..to stick to my own understanding and not judge others the path they are on.(be that christian fundamentalist or atheist).
my path is my own.my understanding is my own as are my conclusions.
i have the humility to understand i do not know everything,far from it and that my existence is about my own experiences and understandings.
and to have the flexibility according to these understandings that they may..at any time..change due to my subjective reality.
so any new information i receive is added and creates a new paradigm.

as for faith.
well..i cant help you there to further your understanding.that is a personal road and any attempt i do make concerning that will only be regarded with your understanding and most likely misunderstood.
so i dont even try.
why would i? to do so would be the height of hubris and arrogance and i would become just like the preachy fundamentalist.
/shivers...no thank you.
i prefer human interaction laced with mutual respect and a full understanding that i may,possibly..be wrong.

anyways.
always great chatting with you about this subject.
it is still one of my faves.
be well brother.

religion is control by way of fear.
they pretend to be the gatekeepers and the ONLY people with the key to get through.
this is utter bullshit (try telling a fundamentalist that though....oh wait).
to me evolution and natural selection are more in line with my understanding of a creator than say:adam and eve,gilgamesh or mithra.

my understanding of a creator and my connection to that creator also allows me..in fact compels me..to stick to my own understanding and not judge others the path they are on.(be that christian fundamentalist or atheist).
my path is my own.my understanding is my own as are my conclusions.
i have the humility to understand i do not know everything,far from it and that my existence is about my own experiences and understandings.
and to have the flexibility according to these understandings that they may..at any time..change due to my subjective reality.
so any new information i receive is added and creates a new paradigm.

as for faith.
well..i cant help you there to further your understanding.that is a personal road and any attempt i do make concerning that will only be regarded with your understanding and most likely misunderstood.
so i dont even try.
why would i? to do so would be the height of hubris and arrogance and i would become just like the preachy fundamentalist.
/shivers...no thank you.
i prefer human interaction laced with mutual respect and a full understanding that i may,possibly..be wrong.

anyways.
always great chatting with you about this subject.
it is still one of my faves.
be well brother.

you all need to stop condescending to shinyblurry,
and please stop with all that "attitude" with the snide comments.
it just comes across as arrogant.
ya'all are being self serving AND self righteous in your "questions" and 'theories" pertaining to the bible.
you have no understanding..have you guys ever even READ the bible?
come on..give shinyblurry a chance to speak.

go on shinyblurry.
you were speaking of "original sin" and how everybody else seems to have gotten that particular question wrong.
heathens...yeesh.pay no attention to them.
your humility concerning your faith shines like a beacon on an antarctic winter day.
/listens closely

Who said anything about being humble in calling the faithful delusional? It's hypocritical in the EXTREME to claim humility while at the same time claiming to have a personal phone line to all the answers to everything anyone could ever want for all eternity. All this from a 2000 year old book that was assembled by a committee and authored by men many times, decades after the events depicted had actually supposedly happened. Humble is admitting we know very little, not claiming we have all the answers.


Yes, it's so humble to call the faithful delusional and arrogant. If you were truly humble you'd realize that for all its so-called progress humanity is still rubbing two sticks together, and what we call new is just old in different packaging.
- shineyblurry

>> ^offsetSammy:
This is a really nice and humble way of putting things. I think you're right on. Religious people seem to have this idea that atheists are arrogant know-it-alls. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is an acceptance of the unknown, a humility about how little knowledge we really have. On the other hand, claiming that your religious, human experiences, miniature in comparison to the enormity of the universe, give you the ultimate insight into who created it, is delusional and arrogant.
(this is not to say we should accept the unknown "sitting down", of course. We should always be trying to seek the answers to our most profound questions by using the tools of science.)
>> ^criticalthud
i was raised catholic. leaving was not a choice in what i believed, it was an acceptance of the unknown.



Yes, it's so humble to call the faithful delusional and arrogant. If you were truly humble you'd realize that for all its so-called progress humanity is still rubbing two sticks together, and what we call new is just old in different packaging.

This is a really nice and humble way of putting things. I think you're right on. Religious people seem to have this idea that atheists are arrogant know-it-alls. In fact it is quite the opposite. It is an acceptance of the unknown, a humility about how little knowledge we really have. On the other hand, claiming that your religious, human experiences, miniature in comparison to the enormity of the universe, give you the ultimate insight into who created it, is delusional and arrogant.

(this is not to say we should accept the unknown "sitting down", of course. We should always be trying to seek the answers to our most profound questions by using the tools of science.)

>> ^criticalthud
i was raised catholic. leaving was not a choice in what i believed, it was an acceptance of the unknown.

know thyself.
and in doing so:
know thy limitation and conversely the things you are quite good at,
and have the humility and understanding that you can always improve and there is ALWAYS someone better at something then you are.
then befriend them and steal their power by eating their heart.

see?....simple.

I have no problem with your comment, and I like Ebert despite his being an irredeemable liberal. He knows a lot about movies. I know some people that will go see movies because Ebert dislikes them.



>> ^Payback:

I've wondered why I've never felt any real compassion for him, then it dawned on me. Before the cancer, he was such an uptight, sanctimonious prick, so in love with his own voice... just seemed kharmically balanced to me. At least he seems to have learned some humility.