I wonder if Michael Nugent knows the real reason God created all of us and what it means to be saved? If he does, then there would be no reason for him to think of Christianity as arrogant.
Comment by Steven Denney — June 7, 2011 @ 4:39 pm
No more than you do. And that’s a result of religion’s inbreeding of arrogance.
Comment by tildeb — June 7, 2011 @ 4:50 pm
I’m having a hard time understanding where you are coming from.
The Bible gives us that answer. It in no way depicts God’s creation as having a reason to be arrogant for creating everyone. I’m not saying some people do not act arrogantly. I’m just saying they have no Biblical reason too.
Comment by Steven Denney — June 7, 2011 @ 6:41 pm
I wonder if Michael Nugent knows the real reason Allah created all of us and what it means to be saved? If he does, then there would be no reason for him to think of Islam as arrogant.
I’m having a hard time understanding where you are coming from.
The Koran gives us that answer. It in no way depicts Allah’s creation as having a reason to be arrogant for creating everyone. I’m not saying some people do not act arrogantly. I’m just saying they have no Koranic reason too.
I wonder if Michael Nugent knows the real reason Orisis created all of us and what it means to be saved? If he does, then there would be no reason for him to think of Islam as arrogant.
I’m having a hard time understanding where you are coming from.
The Book of the Dead gives us that answer. It in no way depicts Orisis’ creation as having a reason to be arrogant for creating everyone. I’m not saying some people do not act arrogantly. I’m just saying they have no Book of the Dead reason too
Comment by Cedric Katesby — June 7, 2011 @ 9:33 pm
What is arrogant about believing in a god who created everything?
Is it arrogant to not believe a god created everything?
Comment by Steven Denney — June 8, 2011 @ 7:20 am
What is arrogant is believing such a critter would actually care about us and be concerned about what we do.
Comment by tildeb — June 8, 2011 @ 9:32 am
You still appear to be using the Bible as some form of authority – why is that?
Comment by misunderstoodranter — June 8, 2011 @ 2:09 pm
I use the Bible to explain my belief. If someone says that I am arrogant because I believe that God cares about His creation, then I want to use the Bible to explain why that statement doesn’t make sense.
Comment by Steven Denney — June 8, 2011 @ 8:57 pm
“What is arrogant is believing such a critter would actually care about us and be concerned about what we do.”
It is not arrogant to think someone cares about us or is concerned about us.
In the Bible, it talks about God’s love.
In the Christian faith, everything was created for God’s purpose.
But he gives more grace. Therefore it says, “God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” (James 4:6 ESV)
If I believe all of this is true, based on the definition of arrogant, how am I arrogant.
This isn’t about people beleiving in what I believe. It is about understanding what I believe. Everyone has to make they own choice as to what to believe.
Comment by Steven Denney — June 8, 2011 @ 10:18 pm
You still appear to be using the Bible as some form of authority – why is that?
I use the Bible to explain my belief.
Why do you use the Bible to explain your belief? Why do you regard it as an authority?
If someone tried to do the same thing with, say, the Koran or The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would you just meekly go with that?
Jesus and Adulteress (By:YahoshuaMyLord)
Comment by Cedric Katesby — June 9, 2011 @ 12:49 am
This explains why no one except the deluded (meaning those who believe something to be true in the absence of corroborating evidence) who goes to seminary and actually studies the history of the bible comes away believing it is the word of god.
Comment by tildeb — June 9, 2011 @ 10:46 am
“Why do you use the Bible to explain your belief? Why do you regard it as an authority?”
“If someone tried to do the same thing with, say, the Koran or The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster would you just meekly go with that?”
I use the Bible because I believe it to be true. If I asked a Muslim about their Islamic faith, I would expect their answer to come from the Quran. Even though I don’t believe the same thing as a Muslim, I still expect their belief to be based on what the Quran says. If you are getting the impression from me that you should believe just because the Bible says so, that is not what I am trying to say. What I am saying, is a good way to learn about the Christian faith is to study the Bible. You decide whether you want to believe it or not.
Many versions of the Bible note that the story of the adulterous woman is not found in the earliest manuscripts. P-66 is not a complete copy of the Gospel of John. The story could easily have been recorded in the part of P-66 that is missing. Some scholars believe that the story may have been passed down by word of mouth and then later added. They use these verses from John as reason to believe.
v.30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book; v.31 but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:30-31 ESV)
My opinion is that the original writings hold the truth and that this story is in the original. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that what we have today, in the Old Testament, is extremely accurate to what is written in the scrolls. Some of the scrolls date back as far as 5th century B.C. This makes me think that the Bible has been very accurately copied and passed down. I believe that if the story of the adulterous woman is not in the original record, it is still a true story involving Jesus.
Comment by Steven Denney — June 11, 2011 @ 2:14 pm
You seem to be missing a rather obvious point, Steven: atheists are called arrogant for NOT believing the universe was created for our benefit, whereas the ‘humble’ creationist believes that from the hundred billion galaxies which EACH contain a hundred billion stars, the most powerful critter imaginable waited 14 billion years and then selected ONE of those galaxies and ONE of those stars contained within and ONE of the planets around that star and then ONE of the millions of species on that planet and then ONE of the branches of that species and then tells that guy that he really needs to stop picking up sticks on the sabbath.
If you cannot understand why the label of arrogant is clearly and unequivocally assigned to the wrong group, then no amount of bible study will reveal the immensity of the error.
Comment by tildeb — June 11, 2011 @ 3:14 pm
You seem so passionate about trying to call all theists arrogant. Arrogance shouldn’t fall on either group, but it can fall on a person from either group. Arrogance has to do with the way you present yourself. You can be a humble atheist or a humble theist. I would argue with any theist that thinks an atheist is arrogant just because they don’t believe.
Your example of the view Christians have about God is very wrong. That is a view atheists have made up about why Christians believe God created everyone. That view implies that the only reason was to boss people around.
Comment by Steven Denney — June 11, 2011 @ 5:20 pm
Atheists are called arrogant all the time and gnu atheists especially as strident and militant. The latest PEW survey ranks atheists at the bottom of trustworthiness. There is an ongoing public relations issue based on nothing other than bigotry that we gnus have to battle. I comment elsewhere and am immediately labelled as a strident unpleasant person even when my words are far less harsh and critical and mean-spirited than those who rally to the defense of the blog administrator. I get banned all the time – not for what I say but how others perceive my so-called tone. There is an assumption that criticism equates with atheist militancy, yet the reverse is excused on the basis of religious privilege. But when the facts are held up to the belief people have, the arrogance becomes plainly evident: one has to be extraordinarily arrogant to presume a special place in the vastness of this universe. And to then build all kinds of incredibly naive assumptions about some celestial spirit police to monitor and punish individual behaviours based on an ancient and highly selective interpretations of an almost incoherent text that has been translated and edited countless times is the height of foolishness and self-delusion. As a group, theists have to take on the mantle of tremendous arrogance to assume a personal relationship with the creator of the universe and a willful intolerance to apply even a modicum of critical thinking to the legitimacy of those assumptions. You cannot be a humble evangelical christian or a humble muslim or a humble jew as long as you presume to be special enough for intentional and directed creation. For those incompatible claims to be held in a single mind requires a baseline of intellectual hypocrisy and a boatload of rationalizations to maintain it.
Comment by tildeb — June 11, 2011 @ 6:39 pm
“There is an ongoing public relations issue based on nothing other than bigotry that we gnus have to battle.”
I get tired of being called delusional, stupid, idiotic etc., for what I believe. I have been on an atheist based site, which welcomes theists, that has a forum with a religion section. On there, very hateful things were said to me, in an arrogant way, because of my belief. I watched a video produced by atheists that portrayed atheists as being mad that Christians were not raptured. I say all that to say, I don’t think that all atheists are that way.
I don’t think a post saying atheists are not arrogant theists are, is the best way to battle. Most theists will not look at you as being a humble atheist. Showing others how you accept them no matter what they believe is the best way. To battle the problem, I think a good post would be about how atheists should not be labeled as arrogant just because of a very small group of extremists. Explain how atheism is about not believing in gods while still respecting other people’s belief in a god.
“You cannot be a humble evangelical christian or a humble muslim or a humble jew as long as you presume to be special enough for intentional and directed creation.”
In the Christian faith, the belief is that everyone is special enough in God’s eyes, not just Christians. In the Christian faith, the belief is that Jesus went to the Cross for you and me. Even though you don’t believe in any god, I would like for you to at least understand Christianity. You do not have to believe to understand. I just can’t see how believing that God thinks everyone is special enough to create them can define anyone as arrogant. The Bible talks a lot about not being arrogant and prideful, but to be humble.
Arrogant: 1. Exaggerating or disposed to exaggerate one’s own worth or importance often by an overbearing manner.
2. Showing an offensive attitude of superiority: proceeding from or characterized by arrogance.
If the Bible tells us that God loves everyone and created everyone, then how is a Christian exaggerating one’s own worth, if the Christian believes what the Bible says? I believe it has to do with the way a theist or an atheist represents himself in his belief. If you have an offensive attitude or act more important than another person, then one can be considered arrogant. To me that best fits the definition of arrogant.
Comment by Steven Denney — June 13, 2011 @ 12:02 am
Here are the facts, Steven:
“Atheists continue to be unelectable in America. A majority of Americans would be less likely to support electing a presidential candidate who is an atheist — 61%, according to a survey from Pew. Other traits are also perceived as negative, like being gay, being divorced, having used drugs, and so forth, but none of them result in nearly as much disapproval as atheism. According to Americas, being an atheist is about the worst thing that a person can be.”
It is on this kind of evidence that I say what I do and not on some emotional level that some people have hurt my feelings. Imagine if non stamp collectors were vilified as untrustworthy and try to figure out how that makes any sense at all. It doesn’t. What it shows is a concerted effort on the part of many believers to maintain a bigoted viewpoint that atheists are somehow less trustworthy because of what they do NOT believe and are then labelled as arrogant, strident, and militant if they dare complain about religious privilege that empowers this naked bigotry. Clearly, these words – arrogant, strident, militant – belong to those who maintain and promote the bigotry, which includes the arrogance of thinking that through belief alone comes knowledge of god and its nature, desires, intentions, and so forth. You, for example, claim that god thinks everyone is special. You cannot possibly know this. All you have is your belief it is so, and it is upon this belief that you then try to tell me that this is what god thinks about me revealed to you through scripture. Bullshit. This is arrogance on your part, pretending that you know something you do not know, having absorbed the authority to suggest it is so in truth because you grant to the bible some privileged authority, and failing to establish that this belief is empty of evidence of its veracity. Yet it is on this belief that the criticism of atheists and the quality of their character in terms of trustworthiness rests, one that is transmitted into the public domain as the least trustworthy people to hold public office. That’s not my belief, Steven, nor my hurt feelings: that’s the fact of the matter, the actual result of your belief, the truth backed up by evidence that it is so. When confronted by such blatant bigotry, atheists are incredibly well mannered even if they have every right to be furious at this undeserved treatment by the faithful.
Comment by tildeb — June 14, 2011 @ 10:10 pm
“I use the Bible because I believe it to be true.”
Yes Steven, you are very good at stating what you ‘believe’ but not WHY you believe it to be true – have you examined the bible properly, have you checked its contents and verified that what it says makes logical or factual sense. Is the bible historically accurate? Does the bible concur with what we observe to be true? Have you compared and contrasted the bible with other religious texts to see if they concur with each other?
How do you ‘know’ that the bible is true? How can you be sure that it is true? What evidence other than the bible have you checked (or do you just believe any story? So long as a man in a silly hat tells you it is true?).
“Even though I don’t believe the same thing as a Muslim, I still expect their belief to be based on what the Quran says.”
So who holds the truth? The Muslims or the Christians? And how do you know you are worshiping the right religion?
“What I am saying, is a good way to learn about the Christian faith is to study the Bible. You decide whether you want to believe it or not.”
Atheists have studied the Christian bible and other religious texts, this is why we do not believe in them – because they are fictitious and are not supported by *any* evidence.
“Some scholars believe that the story may have been passed down by word of mouth and then later added. They use these verses from John as reason to believe.”
Some scholars believe that the story of Harry Potter has been passed down by word of mouth and then later added. They use these verses from Gandalf to believe – do Steven that your claims for belief and truth are just utterly ridiculous.
“My opinion is that the original writings hold the truth and that this story is in the original. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that what we have today, in the Old Testament, is extremely accurate to what is written in the scrolls. Some of the scrolls date back as far as 5th century B.C. This makes me think that the Bible has been very accurately copied and passed down.”
Steven please get your facts straight see here for carbon dating: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls
See here for: Content of the scrolls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls
Just take a little time to do a little research before making a fact claim – that’s all it takes.
“I believe that if the story of the adulterous woman is not in the original record, it is still a true story involving Jesus.”
WHY? Let me put it this way using sarcasm:
I believe the entire universe was created by elves who made everything out of jelly beans – I have no evidence to prove it – but I believe it anyway, so it is true. Furthermore the elves of jelly bean universe get offended if you use their name in vain, they also require you not to shop on Wednesday, or have sex with people the same sex – and they also require every child to be brought up believing in them or you will drown in a soup of liquid sugar for all eternity.
See how ridiculous this is… religion is ridiculous nonsense, whether examined closely or extensively its claims turn out to be nothing more than exaggerations, false promises, hearsay and unsubstantiated claims of fact – it is a story Steven, a really poorly written one.
Comment by misunderstoodranter — June 12, 2011 @ 7:14 am
Thanks for the link to the carbon dating chart on the Dead Sea Scrolls. It looks like the first scroll in the list could date back to 5th century BCE(Wadi-Daliyeh deed 2289 +/- 55 408-203 BCE). Although, I don’t think it reflects any biblical writings. Based on the chart, it looks like the oldest biblical writings could date as far back as 3rd or 4th century BCE(1QIsaiaha 2141 +/- 32 351-295 or 230-53 BCE). I previously thought the scrolls that dated back to 5th century were biblical writings. What I had read must have been referring to the Wadi-Daliyeh deed 2289 +/- 55 408-203 BCE. I stand corrected. Again thank you for the link.
What is interesting is that the book of Isaiah is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating before the life of Jesus. Isaiah 53 is a prophecy of Jesus. Isaiah 53 talks about how Jesus would die for our sins. Just based on historical evidence alone, there is too much to consider it ridiculous nonsense. Jesus did live on this earth and was crucified. I’m sure you have heard the question that has to be asked, was Jesus a liar, a lunatic or is he our Lord? Your opinion is that it is ridiculous, but that doesn’t make Christianity untrue, it just means that you don’t believe.
Comment by Steven Denney — July 2, 2011 @ 10:09 pm
What is Jesus had not been crucified? What if he’d gone on as a wandering preacher and lived into middle age, at which point, he was found dead of natural causes. So he’s the Son of God, and God “gave” his only begotten son (God had only one kid?) so that….well, what was God’s “Plan” in having his only son suffer a painful, brutal death on the cross? If Jesus’ message was so important for people, why wouldn’t God have him live longer in hopes that more would be swayed by His message…. meanwhile, atheists don’t believe in God. OK. I’m cool with that. But why do they use so much energy in being anti-God? Seems like a waste of time. If I don’t believe in something (like the Easter Bunny) I just move on. If someone else does, it is their business. Atheists aren’t any more arrogant than “Saved Christians.” They’re all a crushing bore.
Comment by Selia — August 16, 2011 @ 8:27 pm
But why do they use so much energy in being anti-God?
Because this incoherent notion lies at the heart of so much discrimination and privilege.
To address the very real problems associated with faith-based belief, one must address come to understand why it is a problem. You prove the point and describe this necessary criticism as ‘anti-god’, which again is simply a diversion from what is being criticized. To use a common analogy, I complain of institutional and social discrimination through public policies against non stamp collectors and criticize favoritism towards stamp collectors… and you come along and ask “Why do you hate stamp collecting?” and suggest we just all just “move on.”
Comment by tildeb — August 17, 2011 @ 8:40 am
If Jesus’ message was so important for people, why wouldn’t God have him live longer [...]
Or how about have him come now when more people are literate and knowledgeable than ever before? You would think that a deity-type would want to prove their existence rather than relying on some poorly written books filled with errors, cruelty and prone to interpretation.
Comment by The Arbourist — August 19, 2011 @ 7:26 pm
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 88 other followers
The Rubric Theme. Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.