1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou, and the rest, have the specific agenda of personal gain. Cheating nature. Not being cast into the "Lake of Fire". Let me try a different angle: would you be so quick to "believe" if Jesus' message was "When you die, it's over. Be nice to everyone, including yourself, right now. It's all you get".
Here are your original comments. Now support your charge of the "specific agenda."
Originally posted by David CIf the soul ended at physical death, and the message from God was this 'is all you get,' then I obviously wouldn't have much of a choice in the matter, nor would anyone else. However, for there to exist an agenda on the part of believers, that message would necessarily have to be the truth... with extension for the soul being an addendum. The purpose of that addendum is unclear and totally unwarranted. What possible gain would I realize in propogating that addendum (whether or not I knew it wasn't true)?
You, and the rest, have the specific agenda of personal gain. Cheating nature. Not being cast into the "Lake of Fire". Let me try a different angle: would you be so quick to "believe" if Jesus' message was "When you die, it's over. Be nice to everyone, including yourself, right now. It's all you get".
I don't believe you have thought your conspiracy theory all of the way through, and certainly not to its logical conclusions.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHhere's some more of Ol' Tom's writing:
If the soul ended at physical death, and the message from God was this 'is all you get,' then I obviously wouldn't have much of a choice in the matter, nor would anyone else. However, for there to exist an agenda on the part of believers, that message would necessarily have to be the truth... with extension for the soul being an addendum. The purpose of ...[text shortened]... our conspiracy theory all of the way through, and certainly not to its logical conclusions.
"Deism, then, teaches us, without the possibility of being deceived, all that is necessary or proper to be known. The creation is the Bible of the Deist. He there reads, in the handwriting of the Creator himself, the certainty of his existence and the immutability of his power, and all other Bibles and Testaments are to him forgeries. The probability that we may be called to account hereafter will, to a reflecting mind, have the influence of belief; for it is not our belief or disbelief that can make or unmake the fact. As this is the state we are in, and which it is proper we should be in, as free agents, it is the fool only, and not the philosopher, or even the prudent man, that would live as if there were no God.
But the belief of a God is so weakened by being mixed with the strange fable of the Christian creed, and with the wild adventures related in the Bible, and of the obscurity and obscene nonsense of the Testament, that the mind of man is bewildered as in a fog. Viewing all these things in a confused mass, he confounds fact with fable; and as he cannot believe all, he feels a disposition to reject all. But the belief of a God is a belief distinct from all other things, and ought not to be confounded with any. The notion of a Trinity of Gods has enfeebled the belief of one God. A multiplication of beliefs acts as a division of belief; and in proportion as anything is divided it is weakened.
Religion, by such means, becomes a thing of form, instead of fact — of notion, instead of principles; morality is banished to make room for an imaginary thing called faith, and this faith has its origin in a supposed debauchery; a man is preached instead of God; an execution is an object for gratitude; the preachers daub themselves with the blood, like a troop of assassins, and pretend to admire the brilliancy it gives them; they preach a humdrum sermon on the merits of the execution; then praise Jesus Christ for being executed, and condemn the Jews for doing it. A man, by hearing all this nonsense lumped and preached together, confounds the God of the creation with the imagined God of the Christians, and lives as if there were none.
Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics. As an engine of power it serves the purpose of despotism; and as a means of wealth, the avarice of priests; but so far as respects the good of man in general, it leads to nothing here or hereafter.
there is much more but that's what he thought.
Originally posted by whodeyYou've miserably failed to support any of your assertions. The morality, culture and political philosophy of the Framers is very far from your extremist Christianity.
Whether you are right and they were only refering to a Deist God or I am right and they were referring to a Christian God, one thing is clear. The culture of the United States, beginning with the Pilgrims until recent times, has changed from one that had religious roots to one that has increasingly become more secular and increasingly hostile to religion. T ...[text shortened]... s, I think it reasonably safe to assume that this prayer was directed towards the Christian God.
Originally posted by NemesioYou're just being polite. The ironic thing here is your fervently-held belief that anyone who accepts the Bible as the word of God must necessarily be narrow-minded. To your perspective, the suggestion that a Bible believer can be open-minded is inconceivable... that, in itself, should suggest to you that perhaps the shoe is being forced upon the wrong foot.
Your profound sense of irony is always astonishing.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think anyone who accepts any position without the ability to let that
You're just being polite. The ironic thing here is your fervently-held belief that anyone who accepts the Bible as the word of God must necessarily be narrow-minded. To your perspective, the suggestion that a Bible believer can be open-minded is inconceivable... that, in itself, should suggest to you that perhaps the shoe is being forced upon the wrong foot.
position go in the face of new evidence is narrow minded. In fact,
I think that this is the definition of narrow-mindedness: an unwillingness
to relinquish a position irrespective of evidence to the contrary.
I have no problem with a person's believing that the Bible is the Word
of God so long as that belief's entailments do not require the
disbelief in other, provable things. That is, if one believes that the
Bible is the Word of God and that the story of Genesis is allegorical,
you'll never hear me speak to that person's narrow-mindedness. To
accept the Genesis story as literal and historical fact is to ignore a
mountain of evidence to the contrary. Those blinders which keep a
person focused on that single conclusion is, by definition, narrow minded.
If I recall correctly, you do not believe that it is possible for a person
to accept the Bible as the Word of God and simultaneously believe
that the Genesis story is allegorical, correct? That is, you do not afford
a broader interpretation of what it means to accept the Bible as
the Word of God.
This is narrow minded, FreakyKBH. There is no 'interpretting' that
definition.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHowever, for there to exist an agenda on the part of believers, that message would necessarily have to be the truth
If the soul ended at physical death, and the message from God was this 'is all you get,' then I obviously wouldn't have much of a choice in the matter, nor would anyone else.
Perhaps you are confused. An agenda does not necessarily need to contain any element of truth in its' objectives. For instance, my agenda for tomorrow:
1. Hit the grocery store for some milk and coffee.
2. Get an oil and filter change.
3. Win the lottery.
4. Find the Pink Unicorn living under my deck.
See?
I don't believe you have thought your conspiracy theory all of the way through, and certainly not to its logical conclusions.
Right back atcha, sport.
1 edit
Originally posted by NemesioTo accept the Genesis story as literal and historical fact is to ignore a mountain of evidence to the contrary.
I think anyone who accepts any position without the ability to let that
position go in the face of new evidence is narrow minded. In fact,
I think that this is the definition of narrow-mindedness: an unwillingness
to relinquish a position irrespective of evidence to the contrary.
I have no problem with a person's believing that the Bible is the Word
is is narrow minded, FreakyKBH. There is no 'interpretting' that
definition.
Nemesio
That sounds like you've narrowed your thinking down to a definte decision. Namely, you have determined (based upon a supposed "mountain of evidence" ) that the Genesis account can be nothing but allegorical. Moreover, that narrowed thinking--- more than likely--- has been informed from a very restrictive reading of the account, without regard to the original language. That being said, who is more likely to be in possession of a narrow mind: the person who allows the text to say what it actually says and subsequently makes a determination; or, the person who makes their determination based upon an inadequate translation?
Only until you are able to get yourself into the first category can you truly call yourself an open-minded person. Going into the situation with your mind made up by the supposed "mountain of evidence" (which is more readily described as 'our most current scientific position'😉 does not bequeath any form of scholarship upon you.
Originally posted by David CYes, I am confused. I assumed when you used the word 'agenda,' you actually meant it in the same way most other thinking adults use the word. The context of your charges gave no indication that you actually only meant to use the word as a substitute for 'plans.' This obviously changes the whole tenor of your charge. In light of this unforeseen revelation, you are correct, David: all believers everywhere--- including me--- have a plan.
[b]However, for there to exist an agenda on the part of believers, that message would necessarily have to be the truth
Perhaps you are confused. An agenda does not necessarily need to contain any element of truth in its' objectives. For instance, my agenda for tomorrow:
1. Hit the grocery store for some milk and coffee.
2. Get an oil and filter ch ...[text shortened]... the way through, and certainly not to its logical conclusions.[/b]
Right back atcha, sport.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI need to do no such thing. If you'll recall, you were the one claiming millions of Christian believers were unencumbered by "agenda". I merely pointed out that is not the case. You are all motivated by the illusion of personal gain. In whatever secret decoder context you wish to utilize the word, you are wrong. Sorry.
Very cool little photo. Now all you need to do is reconcile your current use of the word with your previous intention. Given the kalistentics thus far, it shouldn't be too difficult.
Originally posted by David CLet's put this to bed here, shall we? This began with my claim of Paine's agenda, so start there.
I need to do no such thing. If you'll recall, you were the one claiming millions of Christian believers were unencumbered by "agenda". I merely pointed out that is not the case. You are all motivated by the illusion of personal gain. In whatever secret decoder context you wish to utilize the word, you are wrong. Sorry.
FreakyKBH: Agendas have a way of doing funny things to our thinking, so it's to be expected.
Now, does the context surrounding the word agenda seem to infer 'plan,' or does it seem to infer the following:
2 : an underlying often ideological plan or program "a political agenda"
It is quite apparent that my sentence pointed to Paine's reactionary motivation, not his general plan of writing a treatise on the veracity and/or legitamacy of Christianity. Why? Because his reaction to something he found so vehement overwhelmed his sense of reason, thus tainting the overall outcome of the work. As this emotional reaction caused a loss in objectivity, the results of any production are therefore not just suspicious, but rejected outright.
How would someone know this emotional reaction was the intent of my use of the word 'agenda?' Simple: read my further clarification, as follows.
FreakyKBH: With a skewed view of a small portion of the evidence, Paine rejects the Bible as revelation, embracing instead the church of his own mind.
The keynote phrase here is "skewed view of a small portion of the evidence." Clearly anyone who is in possession of but a small part of the whole will likely get at least a majority of the equation wrong, if not the entire thing.
Juxtaposed with Paine, I went on to contrast his agenda-driven views with Bible-believing Christians.
FreakyKBH: With a clear conscience unencumbered by agenda, there are millions more who accept the Bible as it presents itself: the word of God.
Next, your claim.
David C: Unencumbered by agenda? I think not. Each member of the millions in your ad populum has a very, very specific agenda in "believing" the veracity of the bible and the NT.
While the argument could be made that salvation itself is the motivation for these millions of Christians' belief (as you have attempted) such an argument is leaving out a required element, which is the assumption of truth. The only way those Christians could be in possession of an agenda is for the truth of the Bible to be dependent upon their belief. Going into it with such knowledge is self-contradictory, and therefore evident of not only an agenda, but sheer stupidity.
The case could be made for the 'suckers born every minute,' in sundry areas of life. Why else would companies continue to come out with new weight-loss products, if not for the gullibility factor? However, that is not what you are asserting here. You are charging that, sans any objective tests related to any other field of study, Christians believe solely on the basis of their desire to extend the life of their person beyond this physical life, and further do so in full (or partial and convincing) knowledge of information to the contrary.
That is where I have challenged you. Now use your secret decoder ring and wiggle your way out of this corner.
[i]David C: