Post Reply
Page 52 of 56  •  Prev 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 ... 56 Next
Switch to Forum Live View "Atheist" Theology ... ???
5 years ago  ::  Nov 02, 2009 - 8:22PM #511
teilhard
Posts: 51,424

Nov 2, 2009 -- 4:10PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Nov 2, 2009 -- 3:19PM, teilhard wrote:


It's always some Version of "Zeus 2.0"


with you,


isn't it ... ???



Zeus 2.0 is a lot more interesting than the Yahweh 0.0 that you are stuck with.  Zeus' children are much more interesting than the Christ Yahweh reputedly sired although he had to send the holy ghost to do the dirty deed.  And you have to admit that thunderbolts are much more interesting than burning bushes and sticks that turn into snakes.  




"Interesting-ness-osity" -- more or less or not --


isn't The Question,


is it ... ???

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 02, 2009 - 8:24PM #512
teilhard
Posts: 51,424

Nov 2, 2009 -- 1:55PM, newchurchguy wrote:


Oct 31, 2009 -- 9:52AM, Faustus5 wrote:


Oct 28, 2009 -- 3:59PM, teilhard wrote:

LOL ...


 


So ... the Suggested Implication


is that speaking and writing ( supposed ) " ... empty twaddle ... "


puts her in The Company of "Atheists" ... ???


 


Yes ... ???  LOL ...


 


No, the emptiness of her twaddle is that, like you, she says absolutely nothing of substance but tries to dress it up with sophistry in order to offer the illusion of depth.  But unlike you, she can write.


Care to respond to the theologian I cited who also observed that her "god" bears little resemblance to the being he and his follow theists believe in?



F1,


always falling back down to insult - as a substitute for argument - goes after a well respected author


Armstrong, who taught for a time at London's Leo Baeck rabbinic college, says she has been particularly inspired by the Jewish tradition's emphasis on practice as well as faith: "I say that religion isn't about believing things. It's about what you do. It's ethical alchemy. It's about behaving in a way that changes you, that gives you intimations of holiness and sacredness."



First - she promotes the key issue that religion is living life - not talking about it.


Second - The sum total of theists in the world is widely diverse and does not have a clear majority opinion - on the nature of god or gods.  Where religion counts is opinions and level of mandate for the practice of compassion and developing moral character.


The image and "bearing" of any visual image or icon of a god is overshadowed by the moral teaching.  Karen Armstrong is about reporting the commonality of religions.  Aiming at the graphical - when its the practicle output in the objective environemnt that counts - is the standard strawman offering.


f5 cannot seem to help the mudslinging and bad-mouthing of others, when they display ideas different from his own



Indeed,


the REAL Theological-Religious "Twaddle-Peddlers"


are those who ( intentionally ) set up their Flammable Wooden-Straw-gods ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 02, 2009 - 8:54PM #513
Blü
Posts: 25,076

teilhard


the REAL Theological-Religious "Twaddle-Peddlers" are those who ( intentionally ) set up their Flammable Wooden-Straw-gods ...


So that's how you do it!  Again, thanks for sharing.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 02, 2009 - 8:56PM #514
Jcarlinbn
Posts: 7,073

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:22PM, teilhard wrote:


"Interesting-ness-osity" -- more or less or not --


isn't The Question,


is it ... ???



Of course it is.  If you are going to read fables about supernatural omnipotent alpha humanoids you might as well pick the interesting ones.    


 

Jcarlinbn, community moderator
Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 04, 2009 - 4:00PM #515
teilhard
Posts: 51,424

Oct 26, 2009 -- 8:09PM, teilhard wrote:


Oct 25, 2009 -- 8:15PM, teilhard wrote:


Oct 24, 2009 -- 1:11PM, Faustus5 wrote:


 ...  Karen Armstrong's empty twaddle doesn't resemble the religion believed in by the vast majority of the planets theists.




 


LOL ...


 


So ... the Suggested Implication


is that speaking and writing ( supposed ) " ... empty twaddle ... "


puts her in The Company of "Atheists" ... ???




 


Yes ... ???  LOL ...




 


I'll just re-up


the ( obviously un-intended but ) RICH Irony ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2009 - 9:11AM #516
Faustus5
Posts: 2,023

Nov 2, 2009 -- 1:55PM, newchurchguy wrote:


F1,


always falling back down to insult - as a substitute for argument - goes after a well respected author



I've made an argument--you've simply ignored it.  Why don't you respond in substance instead of whining?  Oh, I forgot--when you aren't lying and distorting, all you are capable of is whining.  Never mind.


And I should point out that Armstrong is not respected by everyone.  As my link pointed out, her empty theology is deeply suspected even by fellow theologians.  They will be happy to see anyone attacking atheists, but they know her position on God is completely at odds with what most believers believe.


Nov 2, 2009 -- 1:55PM, newchurchguy wrote:

Second - The sum total of theists in the world is widely diverse and does not have a clear majority opinion - on the nature of god or gods.



I'm afraid they do have a clear majority opinion on certain aspects of God.  They believe in a supernatural entity which created the universe and has opionions on history, sexual activity, and pork.  The believe in an entity which listens to and occasionally answers prayers.  If we take Karen Armstrong as being sincere, her view of god shares absolutely none of these attributes.  Her god is the empty fantasy of an academic, not the God that most theists believe in. That is why Dawkins described her position as basically atheistic, and that is why the theologian I cited complained about her views as being out of touch.


Nov 2, 2009 -- 1:55PM, newchurchguy wrote:

Where religion counts is opinions and level of mandate for the practice of compassion and developing moral character.



This is known as "cherry picking".  What about honor killings?  Female genital mutilation? Suppression of women generally by all theistic religions?  Homophobia?  Creationism?


You can't just pick the stuff you like.  Religion is responsible not merely for compassion.  It is directly implicated in evil.


Nov 2, 2009 -- 1:55PM, newchurchguy wrote:

Karen Armstrong is about reporting the commonality of religions.



No, she's about obscuring the truth and inventing fantasies about religion that have nothing to do with the actual beliefs of theists.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2009 - 9:15AM #517
Faustus5
Posts: 2,023

Nov 4, 2009 -- 4:00PM, teilhard wrote:


I'll just re-up


the ( obviously un-intended but ) RICH Irony ...




Oh, the irony that a theologian was as suspect of Armstrong's conception of god as Dawkins?  Yes, that is very rich indeed.

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2009 - 10:45AM #518
newchurchguy
Posts: 3,639

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:56PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:22PM, teilhard wrote:


"Interesting-ness-osity" -- more or less or not --


isn't The Question,


is it ... ???



Of course it is.  If you are going to read fables about supernatural omnipotent alpha humanoids you might as well pick the interesting ones.    



JB


This got me thinking.  First - I don't know who coined "Zeus 2.0"   but it is very descriptive.


The logic circuits of a being in a  morally relative context - would naturally project a Zeus series of graphic depictions externalizing the natural fantasies.


 


Jesus - who is to me just one aspect of a multifaceted discernment of the Lord's scope of presentment - is not any body's fantasy action hero - one who helps and respects his enemies.


The rational for Zeus as a projection is easy......


Where is the natural human instinct for the behavioral guidelines from Jesus?  How and why would someone make them up?  Why did this odd and defeatist message win "hearts" in reality??  It seems so very unlikely.


Allah -- has some Zeus2.0 appeal.  As does Krisha


 


Why would the Jesus simulation - which follows naturally assuming the "be like" mode of any leader inspired culture - take such hold?  As you say -- its uninteresting.  Why dream to be like Jesus?


 


Zeus 2.0 - sims are all over Hollywood these days   :-)


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2009 - 11:56AM #519
teilhard
Posts: 51,424

Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:56PM, Jcarlinbn wrote:


Nov 2, 2009 -- 8:22PM, teilhard wrote:


"Interesting-ness-osity" -- more or less or not --


isn't The Question,


is it ... ???



Of course it is.  If you are going to read fables about supernatural omnipotent alpha humanoids you might as well pick the interesting ones.    


 




"Gee, I'm GLAD I'm a 'Beta,'


because 'Alphas' have to work SO hard,


and 'Gammas' are STUPID ... "

Quick Reply
Cancel
5 years ago  ::  Nov 06, 2009 - 11:57AM #520
teilhard
Posts: 51,424

Nov 6, 2009 -- 9:15AM, Faustus5 wrote:


Nov 4, 2009 -- 4:00PM, teilhard wrote:


I'll just re-up


the ( obviously un-intended but ) RICH Irony ...




Oh, the irony that a theologian was as suspect of Armstrong's conception of god as Dawkins?  Yes, that is very rich indeed.




 


YOU drew the Comparison ...

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 52 of 56  •  Prev 1 ... 50 51 52 53 54 ... 56 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook