Religious Typology Quiz

[Cancel 1 2023]

No, but like Perry PhD, you are free to play coy.

It’s interesting to watch you dance around when you choose to make the conversation personal and when you choose to stay on topic.

I am beginning to sense that you are not to be considered an honest broker in the conversation. You were the one who made it about me. Like I said, it's not my thing. It's clearly yours.

 

[Commander Dutch]

I will tell you why, if only so you'll have a reason to make up stuff about it

QED

Jank, you claimed you wanted to stay on topic then you post snark about Cypress in a personal attack. Now you know why I find it difficult to believe you are over 35 years of age much less 60ish.

 

[Commander Dutch]

I am beginning to sense that you are not to be considered an honest broker in the conversation. You were the one who made it about me. Like I said, it's not my thing. It's clearly yours.

QED again.

You claim you want to stay on topic but you don’t. You whine and blame others for your own behavior. IMO, that’s not the behavior of a elderly American male.

 

[Cypress]

I will tell you why, if only so you'll have a reason to make up stuff about it.

I raised that specific quote because we were talking about religious morality vs atheist morality.. I merely pointed the fact that the primary holy book of Christianity (which by DEFINITION includes the Old Testament) features centrally on a God for whom "morality" doesn't seem to comport with the morality we all share. That at the core of the religion is a theological concept that along with the love of all people also occasionally allows for murder under special circumstances (ie command by God).

Your mistaken. I didn't say anything about atheist morality. In fact I wrote on this thread that atheists have generally adopted the morality of the social milieu they grew up in.

I was writing about Paleolithic peoples, Cannanites, Phoenicians, and Spartans who as far as I know weren't atheists. I compared some of their cultural practices to those of later cultures that arose from Axial Age philosophical and religious traditions

My point is that there is no ordained morality from a supernatural entity and I use as an example a case we in the West are more familiar with.


But here's the interesting point: you studiously avoided my mention of the Albigensian Crusade. Remember that quote "Caedite eos. ...."? Yeah that's from the Albigensian Crusade when the POPE OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH sent people out to destroy a small sect in southern France in the 13th century. That quote was apocryphally from the Papal Legate and it basically says "Kill them all. Surely God will know his own".

My points were to show that Religion is not a bulwark against evil actions. That when people start rolling out the "evils" done supposedly by atheists for atheism are also done by religious people supposedly in service to their faith and their god.

Does that clarify it yet? You selectively ignored the whole of my posts so you could focus on something to make an accusation against me that is still VERY painful.

I've never said, written, or maintained there was a divine ordained morality. Again, you are mistaken and leaping to assumptions.

--> The Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, the Dhammapada, The Analects are written by humans. They expound a vision for a moral framework and how to live a meaningful and purposeful life. These are innate ideas which come from the human mind and have been committed in writing to paper, papyrus, parchment by human hands. I made no claims as to the origin, inspiration, or source of these innate human ideas. None, nada, zilch.

The key issue at play here, is that I believe there are questions about a human life, about human experience that are not resolvable by scientific methods.

Nothing you have written comvnces me there is a mathematical equation we can solve which will tell us if gay marriage is moral or even legally acceptable, I know of no scientific experiment which tells us how much charity and foreign aid to give to developing countries, I don't know of any scientific analysis which will guide me in finding meaning and purpose in life.
.

 

[Cypress]

I make no claims as to any divine Providence inspiring the innate ideas in the human mind that reason and intuition construct. I don't know what the provenance of innate ideas are. But I get the feeling that for some people, if you don't accept a strictly material reductionist framework of reality, it must mean you are proselytizing religion. And that eventually takes us down the road of cherry picked TaNaKh quotes

There is obviously a lot of preposterous stuff from a 21st century perspective written in the Hebrew Bible, the Dhammapada, the Baghavad Gita, the Qur'an. Especially if taken literally at face value.

Since it was claimed that I am defending a divine origin of human morality, I will bump the post that directly debunks that assertion.

 

[Jarod]

Religious resistor. But it’s a very flawed quiz. It requires lots of absolutes which I do not believe in.

Parts of the Bible are the word of God.
Even if written by Man, the Bible can be the words of God.
Churches can be very beneficial for some and harmful for others.
God can be found in many forms.

 

[Jarod]

God is a white guy sitting on a thrown just above the clouds, and a burning bush, your uncle Bill, and a tree.

 

[BidenPresident]

Religious resistor. But it’s a very flawed quiz. It requires lots of absolutes which I do not believe in.

Parts of the Bible are the word of God.
Even if written by Man, the Bible can be the words of God.
Churches can be very beneficial for some and harmful for others.
God can be found in many forms.

The Pew Foundation is established to promote religion. They do polls and surveys, but usually to promote religion.

 

[Jarod]

The Pew Foundation is established to promote religion. They do polls and surveys, but usually to promote religion.

That makes sense.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Your mistaken. I didn't say anything about atheist morality. In fact I wrote on this thread that atheists have generally adopted the morality of the social milieu they grew up in.

And then went on to point out the horrors done in the name of atheism. You even brought up a personal family anecdote. It was in service to the larger point that atheists can do horrible things to people.

I've never said, written, or maintained there was a divine ordained morality. Again, you are mistaken and leaping to assumptions.

But you DO seem to think there are things beyond the physical world. How would you characterize those things? You seem to want to play a dodgy game of not defining your own terms. Guess it allows you to be as flexible as you need to avoid discussing any point in detail.

Nothing you have written comvnces me there is a mathematical equation we can solve which will tell us if gay marriage is moral or even legally acceptable, I know of no scientific experiment which tells us how much charity and foreign aid to give to developing countries, I don't know of any scientific analysis which will guide me in finding meaning and purpose in life.
.

I have attempted to explain this to you now MULTIPLE TIMES and you just ignore my points. What is the point of me repeating it yet again?

This is why I don't think you are an honest broker in the conversation.

Sorry.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

QED

Jank, you claimed you wanted to stay on topic then you post snark about Cypress in a personal attack. Now you know why I find it difficult to believe you are over 35 years of age much less 60ish.

And hopefully you understand why I find it difficult to not see you as a fierce defender of your Christian faith. You said you were an "agnostic" but your posting style belies someone who gets worked up very quickly when atheists speak. It seems to bother you in the extreme that anyone would speak out against God.

Why not be open about your deeply held faith? It kinda feels like it might be evangelical. Given how quickly you decreed me to be a "violent atheist" just because I mentioned atheism in a larger context.

 

[Cypress]

And then went on to point out the horrors done in the name of atheism. You even brought up a personal family anecdote. It was in service to the larger point that atheists can do horrible things to people.



But you DO seem to think there are things beyond the physical world. How would you characterize those things? You seem to want to play a dodgy game of not defining your own terms. Guess it allows you to be as flexible as you need to avoid discussing any point in detail.



I have attempted to explain this to you now MULTIPLE TIMES and you just ignore my points. What is the point of me repeating it yet again?

This is why I don't think you are an honest broker in the conversation.

Sorry.

State atheism was only a response written when you pinned human atrocity on religion. I asked you to keep a fair score card if you wanted to start counting up human atrocities.

As for individual atheists, I specifically wrote they are as moral as the social mileu they grew up in.

Hardcore atheists and fundys always want to make this about God, or the lack thereof.

That's beside the point to me. I have approached this as a historical, sociological, and cultural question.

You have never offered any explanation that is convincing for how mathematical equations and scientific experiments resolve all the answers to questions humans have about daily existence and experience

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

You have never offered any explanation that is convincing for how mathematical equations and scientific experiments resolve all the answers to questions humans have about daily existence and experience

Actually I have now on a large number of occasions. You simply chose to ignore them. Apparently that is your "ethics" at work.

 

[Cypress]

Actually I have now on a large number of occasions. You simply chose to ignore them. Apparently that is your "ethics" at work.

I've read your explanations. Just because you gave explanations doesn't make them convincing. the fact that have never once in my life met a scientist studying freedom and equality in the lab is more convincing to me.

If you want to break down freedom as a topic of sociological and psychological study, then that is just a blanket admission of what I have said all along - freedom, justice, and equality are innate ideas that exist in the human mind and do not exist out there in the universe with properties that can be measured.


I believe you tacitly accept and realize now that I never intended to bring up State atheism in this thread until you pinned human atrocity on religion; I never wrote anything about individual atheists lacking morality; and I never wrote anything about morality being inspired by a divine being. In fact, I specifically wrote I wasn't asserting divine Providence for morality.

You should have responded to what I actually wrote, rather than what you imagined I wrote.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

I've read your explanations. Just because you gave explanations doesn't make them convincing.

You simply decreed them unconvincing. You never once engaged them. An honest discussion requires that both parties get involved. You didn't.

the fact that have never once in my life met a scientist studying freedom and equality in the lab is more convincing to me.

You see? You completely ignored the STUDY I POSTED about dogs and "fairness".

You just blew right past it and now act like you've never heard any science behind this stuff.

 

[Cypress]

And hopefully you understand why I find it difficult to not see you as a fierce defender of your Christian faith. You said you were an "agnostic" but your posting style belies someone who gets worked up very quickly when atheists speak. It seems to bother you in the extreme that anyone would speak out against God.

Why not be open about your deeply held faith? It kinda feels like it might be evangelical. Given how quickly you decreed me to be a "violent atheist" just because I mentioned atheism in a larger context.

He is just as belligerent to fundamentalist christians as he is to hardcore atheists. Read some of his responses to PMP.

I feel like holy roller fundys and hardcore atheists always have a chip on their shoulder and are quick to treat this topic as a team sport.

I view Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism, Daoism the same way I view Stoicism, Epicureanism, Transcendentalism, Existentialism --> Philosophies and systems of thought and ethics that exist as historical and cultural realities whether or not any divine beings exist.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

He is just as belligerent to fundamentalist christians as he is to hardcore atheists. Read some of his responses to PMP.

His response to me by IMMEDIATELY going straight to "violent atheist" was unsettling. Just like YOU and your attempt to call me an antisemite. It is not appreciated. But it shows a deeper set of problems. You two are of a kind. Both completely incapable of dealing with anyone even modestly disagreeing with you.

When I accidentally insulted you by using the word "unicorn" you will note I apologized. That is my ethos. That is my morality. I note that you don't apologize after calling me an antisemite and listing off all the people you said I "hated".

You are far more like Doc Dutch than you probably feel comfortable about. Which is why this thread has become a two-man circle jerk while I try to speak in the background.

 

[Cypress]

His response to me by IMMEDIATELY going straight to "violent atheist" was unsettling. Just like YOU and your attempt to call me an antisemite. It is not appreciated. But it shows a deeper set of problems. You two are of a kind. Both completely incapable of dealing with anyone even modestly disagreeing with you.

When I accidentally insulted you by using the word "unicorn" you will note I apologized. That is my ethos. That is my morality. I note that you don't apologize after calling me an antisemite and listing off all the people you said I "hated".

You are far more like Doc Dutch than you probably feel comfortable about. Which is why this thread has become a two-man circle jerk while I try to speak in the background.

I told Dutch there were no violent atheists on this thread, and I apologized if I offended you, but would like an explanation for why you are relentlessly negative on the Hebrew Bible and are fixated on a few quotes that Jews don't even pay attention to, while ignoring all the quotes that practicing Jews actually do try to put into deed and action.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

I told Dutch there were no violent atheists on this thread, and I apologized if I offended you, but would like an explanation for why you are relentlessly negative on the Hebrew Bible and are fixated on a few quotes that Jews don't even pay attention to, while ignoring all the quotes that practicing Jews actually do try to put into deed and action.

You mean you drew the conclusion from 3 or 4 posts that I am "relentlessly negative on the Hebrew Bible"? You draw large conclusions on limited data. You are, of course, wrong because you don't see the whole picture. You drew a rather negative and vile conclusion based on limited information.

I already explained to you why I posted the information about the OT that I did. And, again, it appears you refuse to actually read it or attempt to understand it.

This seems to be a pattern with you. You refuse to listen to what others say when it fails to comport with your wishes.

There is actually a great deal of the Bible I like quite a bit. I wouldn't expect you to understand that and I'm absolutely certain you will have stopped reading by this point so that you may preserve your own version of the narrative.

 

[Cypress]

You mean you drew the conclusion from 3 or 4 posts that I am "relentlessly negative on the Hebrew Bible"? You draw large conclusions on limited data. You are, of course, wrong because you don't see the whole picture. You drew a rather negative and vile conclusion based on limited information.

I already explained to you why I posted the information about the OT that I did. And, again, it appears you refuse to actually read it or attempt to understand it.

This seems to be a pattern with you. You refuse to listen to what others say when it fails to comport with your wishes.

There is actually a great deal of the Bible I like quite a bit. I wouldn't expect you to understand that and I'm absolutely certain you will have stopped reading by this point so that you may preserve your own version of the narrative.

The problem with posting selected quotes from the Hebrew Bible that only show Judaism in a bad light, is that it ignores the fact that the actual meaning of the words in the Hebrew Bible are interpreted by Jewish scholars in the Midrash. Jews have a two thousand year history of not taking the literal meaning of the TaNaKh at face value, but interpreting the meaning through running commentary found in the Midrash and the Gemara.

I feel like if you haven't read the Midrash, you shouldn't announce that you know what the Hebrew bible means in bits and pieces of cherry picked quotes.