This Day In History

[Darth Fluffy 302]

10 hours ago, Illjwamh said:

On December 16 in History:

 

1653 - Oliver Cromwell becomes Lord Protector of England, Scotland, and Ireland. Which is totally not a king. But isn't it a de facto autocracy? Well yeah, but it's different. And isn't he head of both state and government? Look, it's different, okay? And isn't he going to pass the title on to his son when...IT'S DIFFERENT!

It is different. Due to the vast capacity of the religious to rationalize anything they do, it is if anything more brutal than its predecessors. As many Irish Catholics would attest. This is not going to come back to bite the British, is it?

 

[The Old Hack 2,448]

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

It is different. Due to the vast capacity of the religious to rationalize anything they do, it is if anything more brutal than its predecessors.

That's all right, they have God on their side. And God says that Trump is the Savior and that Putin really means us all well. And that pedophilia is the mark of a good man who deserves a mulligan. Or five. And God can't be wrong, can He?

[Darth Fluffy 302]

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

That's all right, they have God on their side. And God says that Trump is the Savior and that Putin really means us all well. And that pedophilia is the mark of a good man who deserves a mulligan. Or five. And God can't be wrong, can He?

Number one on the list of things that make me sad.

I don't think God can be wrong, but I would be far less sure of the assertion than I would have been twenty years ago. Religion aside, does he actually claim he's never wrong? Like in the Bible, for instance? I can think of things that are sort of in the ball park, but not a direct statement.

In any case, he doesn't need to be wrong. He has people to do that for him, and we do it very well, thank you.

 

 

[The Old Hack 2,448]

16 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

In any case, he doesn't need to be wrong. He has people to do that for him, and we do it very well, thank you.

Amen.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

23 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Amen.

You might be interested, I'm going through something at the moment. Somewhat over a decade ago, I stopped attending church because all of the above. I'm still a believer, and yet they weren't relevant. I've had some eye opening experiences in the interim, but that's a whole 'nother story.

I use Mozilla Firefox because while I like Chrome and to a lesser extent Edge, I have trust issues with Google and Microsoft. Mozilla has a feature called Mozilla Pocket that offers articles and some advertisements disguised as articles, a few daily. I often check out if there's anything interesting, and will usually click a link or two. This is where I found the article on superwood, for example.

This past Sunday afternoon, I found an article about millennials leaving church in droves, and not coming back, for pretty much the same reason I did. One of the links at the end of the article linked to an article about a church regrouping and taking a new direction, very much against the Trump flow. I read the article, I liked what I saw, and I hoped it worked out for them. Then I noticed the were 20 minutes away. "Thud" - sound of jaw dropping. I'm planning on checking them out this weekend.

How different are they? Well, the article that led me to their website had way more detail than I can recall, but you would appreciate that among many other things, they are trans friendly. I'm a bit surprised no one has tried to burn them at the stake yet. I'll let you know how it goes.

 

[ijuin 572]

God Himself is perfect, but our understanding of Him is not—we are like newborn babies trying to comprehend international politics. That is why I distrust anybody who claims to have The Absolute Final Indisputable Word about God’s Will. Whenever any human (such as a religious leader) is placed above reproach, very quickly we find that his own conscience is the only thing standing in the way of declaring that God’s Will is whatever he wants it to be, which in effect means that His own will is God’s Will.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

14 minutes ago, Darth Fluffy said:

How different are they? Well, the article that led me to their website had way more detail than I can recall, but you would appreciate that among many other things, they are trans friendly. I'm a bit surprised no one has tried to burn them at the stake yet. I'll let you know how it goes.

I would be very interested.

2 minutes ago, ijuin said:

God Himself is perfect, but our understanding of Him is not—we are like newborn babies trying to comprehend international politics. That is why I distrust anybody who claims to have The Absolute Final Indisputable Word about God’s Will. Whenever any human (such as a religious leader) is placed above reproach, very quickly we find that his own conscience is the only thing standing in the way of declaring that God’s Will is whatever he wants it to be, which in effect means that His own will is God’s Will.

I very much agree with this.

I fear I have lost my belief in God. Nonetheless, I have not quite yielded to atheism though it pulls very strongly at me at times. But whether I ever will or not, I will never cease to respect the beliefs of others as long as they make room for those of others in turn.

[ChronosCat 155]

5 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

I don't think God can be wrong, but I would be far less sure of the assertion than I would have been twenty years ago. Religion aside, does he actually claim he's never wrong? Like in the Bible, for instance? I can think of things that are sort of in the ball park, but not a direct statement.

In the Old Testament, there are actually parts where if you don't go into it assuming God to be omniscient it sounds like it's saying that God made mistakes. For instance, according to Genesis, God caused the Flood because humans had grown so wicked that God regretted ever making them; this sounds to me like God himself considered creating Adam and Eve a mistake. I'm pretty sure there were several other cases of God changing his mind in the Old Testeament, which again seems to me to imply that God is not infallible.

...Personally I think it more likely there is no God, but I think a fallible God would be a lot more believable than a "Perfect" God that for some reason decided to make the world we find ourselves in.

[Illjwamh 98]

2 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

In the Old Testament, there are actually parts where if you don't go into it assuming God to be omniscient it sounds like it's saying that God made mistakes. For instance, according to Genesis, God caused the Flood because humans had grown so wicked that God regretted ever making them; this sounds to me like God himself considered creating Adam and Eve a mistake. I'm pretty sure there were several other cases of God changing his mind in the Old Testeament, which again seems to me to imply that God is not infallible.

 

The idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, infallible god is a fairly recent invention. Most gods throughout history - including the "Old Testament" Hebrew god - were not only fallible, but were no different from humans in nearly every respect with regard to emotion, behavior, attitude, and cleverness. The only real differences setting them apart were their immortality and their divine powers.

 

[The Old Hack 2,448]

10 minutes ago, Illjwamh said:

their immortality

I think I am very tired. I read that as 'immorality.' I guess in the case of Zeus it wouldn't be too far off.

[Illjwamh 98]

Zeus was never considered immoral. He was the purveyor of divine justice, and his tendency to "really get around", as it were, was considered a good thing, as it produced so many gods and powerful heroes. His marital spats with Hera (who was after all the goddess of marriage, and therefore pretty much obligated to take umbrage with his infidelity) were mostly played for laughs.

[Illjwamh 98]

On December 17 in History:

 

497 BCE - Saturnalia is celebrated for the first time. A massive carnival, huge feast, exchanging of gifts (and gag gifts), and servants and masters switching roles. Anyone else wanna bring back that last one?

 

546 - Rome is sacked. This is such a frequent occurrence anymore it's barely worth mentioning. This year's model is by the Ostrogoths underTotila.

 

1538 - Pope Paul III excommunicates Henry VIII of England. Given that he broke with the Catholic Church four years ago, I consider it highly unlikely that he cares.

 

1777 - France recognizes the independence and sovereignty of the United States. It should be noted that a successful republic would in no way be beneficial to France's interests; they just really love trolling Britain.

 

1807 - "Okay, new rule: Nobody's allowed to trade with the UK. I'm super serious, you guys." ~Napoleon Bonaparte

 

1819 - "Gran Colombia is a thing now. Gtfo, Spain." ~ Simón Bolívar

 

1830 - Death of aforementioned Simón Bolívar.

 

1862 - General Ulysses S. Grant issues an order to expel Jews from his military district which includes parts of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky. Oh come on, really? Is there some sort of wartime checklist with "be a dick to Jews for no reason" on it that I'm unaware of?

 

1903 - The Wright brothers make a heavier than air machine fly through the air. What sorcery is this?????

 

1907 - In Bhutan, Ugyen Wangchuck is unanimously elected by representatives of the people to be the first king in a new absolute monarchy. Wow, that usually goes the other way around.

 

1936 - A guy named Jorge Mario Bergoglio is born in Buenos Aires. He'll later change his name to Francis, but you probably haven't heard of him.

 

1946 - The flag of Kurdistan is raised for the first time in the city of Mahabad. Yessir, won't be long now until they're a country of their own for true, especially with stalwart allies like the U.S. supporting them, who'll never sell them out.

 

1960 "Nice try." ~Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia, and his loyal troops, regarding the coup attempt from four days ago.

 

1989 - Fernando Collor de Mello is the first democratically elected president of Brazil in nearly thirty years. If they can make it just as long before their next dictator, I'll be impressed.

 

1989 again - A new show premiers on Fox, based on shorts from the Tracy Ullman Show, called The Simpsons. The animation and voice acting is pretty hokey; don't expect to see this one back next season.

 

2005 - Jigme Singye Wangchuck abdicates the throne of Bhutan. Wonder what made him pick today?

 

2010 - Tunisian street vendor sets himself on fire in protest. A few sparks will have far-reaching consequences across the Arab world next Spring, if you catch my drift.

 

2011 - Death of Kim Jong-il. Before anyone gets too excited, be aware this is very much a "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" type of situation.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

10 hours ago, ijuin said:

God Himself is perfect, but our understanding of Him is not—we are like newborn babies trying to comprehend international politics. That is why I distrust anybody who claims to have The Absolute Final Indisputable Word about God’s Will. Whenever any human (such as a religious leader) is placed above reproach, very quickly we find that his own conscience is the only thing standing in the way of declaring that God’s Will is whatever he wants it to be, which in effect means that His own will is God’s Will.

Indeed some of the things that impressed me were things that were not in their statement of faith.

Example:

Quote

IV. Scripture: We believe the Scriptures are the testimony of God’s work in the world, and when read in the Spirit they provide pictures and patterns that guide our life together.

Do you notice what they don't say? Do you see the phrase, "Inerrant Word of God" there?

Anyway, it may suck. Oh, well, I guess I'll move on. Or I may find some like minded people. Jackpot.

I'll see.

 

 

[Darth Fluffy 302]

10 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I would be very interested.

I very much agree with this.

I fear I have lost my belief in God. Nonetheless, I have not quite yielded to atheism though it pulls very strongly at me at times. But whether I ever will or not, I will never cease to respect the beliefs of others as long as they make room for those of others in turn.

Atheist tend to make a lot of sense, they aren't caught up in a religious framework that they feel compelled to defend, and in turn they don't have one that they use to rationalize their behavior.

 

[Illjwamh 98]

1 hour ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Atheist tend to make a lot of sense, they aren't caught up in a religious framework that they feel compelled to defend, and in turn they don't have one that they use to rationalize their behavior.

 

We sometimes forget what it was like to be a believer, though (those of us who started as one, anyway). As a result it's difficult sometimes not to lose our patience, or be condescending toward people we should be trying to converse with  through rational argument. I know I suffer from this, and while not everyone does, I've encountered plenty others who do.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

2 hours ago, Darth Fluffy said:

Atheist tend to make a lot of sense, they aren't caught up in a religious framework that they feel compelled to defend, and in turn they don't have one that they use to rationalize their behavior.

This does not keep them from either proselytising or from being assholes.

Yes, Richard Dawkins, James Cameron, I am looking at both of you.

1 hour ago, Illjwamh said:

We sometimes forget what it was like to be a believer, though (those of us who started as one, anyway). As a result it's difficult sometimes not to lose our patience, or be condescending toward people we should be trying to converse with  through rational argument. I know I suffer from this, and while not everyone does, I've encountered plenty others who do.

I have encountered atheists who reacted with such complete and reflexive rejection of religious thoughts that it in turn made them irrational. I made the simple statement that modern Western culture is largely based on Christian thought and they rejected it unthinkingly. They could not wrap their minds around the idea that we live in a culture that has been steeped in Christianity for centuries and that it has shaped the thought of our parents and their forebears in all that time -- and that this inevitably has affected even those of us who have rejected Christianity as well. All they did was scream that the Bible was invalid nonsense, too fearful to realise that Christianity represents far, far more than the simple idea "I believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit."

[The Old Hack 2,448]

5 hours ago, Illjwamh said:

Zeus was never considered immoral.

Like buggery. I have considered him immoral throughout my entire life. Even as ten year old kid when I first started to read Greek myths I thought he was an asshole.

Be careful with your 'never' statements. Just because I wasn't alive two thousand years ago doesn't mean that my thoughts are invalid. For one thing, I am far more likely to make counterarguments against you than Homer -- any of him -- is.

[Illjwamh 98]

32 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Like buggery. I have considered him immoral throughout my entire life. Even as ten year old kid when I first started to read Greek myths I thought he was an asshole.

Be careful with your 'never' statements. Just because I wasn't alive two thousand years ago doesn't mean that my thoughts are invalid. For one thing, I am far more likely to make counterarguments against you than Homer -- any of him -- is.

Fair point. What I meant was that he was not considered immoral by the standards of the day, or the people who believed in him.

I personally am more inclined to share your assessment.

[Illjwamh 98]

45 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

I have encountered atheists who reacted with such complete and reflexive rejection of religious thoughts that it in turn made them irrational. I made the simple statement that modern Western culture is largely based on Christian thought and they rejected it unthinkingly. They could not wrap their minds around the idea that we live in a culture that has been steeped in Christianity for centuries and that it has shaped the thought of our parents and their forebears in all that time -- and that this inevitably has affected even those of us who have rejected Christianity as well. All they did was scream that the Bible was invalid nonsense, too fearful to realise that Christianity represents far, far more than the simple idea "I believe in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit."

 

To deny that Western culture and Christianity are deeply intertwined is to ignore over 1600 years of European history, to say nothing of the post-Columbian western hemisphere.

At the same time, saying Western culture is "largely based" on Christian thought is, in my opinion, an overstatement or an oversimplification. I'm not sure which.

The roots of Western culture go back much further than the existence of Christianity. The two have greatly influenced each other, and they grew and changed together for hundreds of years, to the point that for a time they might have been considered one and the same, but to say something is "based on" something it fundamentally  predates doesn't really work.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

1 minute ago, Illjwamh said:

At the same time, saying Western culture is "largely based" on Christian thought is, in my opinion, an overstatement or an oversimplification. I'm not sure which.

Fair point. I would say the latter. I also seemed to have omitted the important word 'modern' from 'Western culture.' The Christian influence on modern Western culture is clearly massive, not only in our everyday lives but in our legal and social thinking. But our culture began well before Christianity hit us.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

This does not keep them from either proselytising or from being assholes.

Yes, Richard Dawkins, James Cameron, I am looking at both of you.

I did not know James Cameron had much of a stance, now you have me curious. Dawkins is indeed special, more intolerant than his peers. Sad, he's really a smart guy, in his field. He's come up with several game changing insights.

[Illjwamh 98]

 It ironically even affects atheism. Most Western atheists focus their argument specifically against the Judeo-Christian god, as opposed to gods in general, which I've always thought is a little weird. It affects the "default" state of our ideology, even when said ideology is diametrically opposed to it.

[Darth Fluffy 302]

1 hour ago, The Old Hack said:

Like buggery. I have considered him immoral throughout my entire life. Even as ten year old kid when I first started to read Greek myths I thought he was an asshole.

Be careful with your 'never' statements. Just because I wasn't alive two thousand years ago doesn't mean that my thoughts are invalid. For one thing, I am far more likely to make counterarguments against you than Homer -- any of him -- is.

Hey, keep The Simpsons out of this. Doh.

[The Old Hack 2,448]

Just now, Darth Fluffy said:

I did not know James Cameron had much of a stance, now you have me curious. Dawkins is indeed special, more intolerant than his peers. Sad, he's really a smart guy, in his field. He's come up with several game changing insights.

Cameron called agnostics 'atheists who are too cowardly to admit that there is no God.'

As far as I am concerned, he can shove that attitude right up his behind and then shove a cactus after it.

[Illjwamh 98]

Agnosticism, as it exists in the current cultural zeitgeist, irritates me. It does so because it fosters a fundamental misunderstanding of what atheism is, and perpetuates misconceptions.

People who identify as "agnostic" (here I'm generalizing for the sake of illustrating the source of my irritation) tend to say things like, "we can't know if there is a god or not, so why be an atheist?" Or something.

Atheism has nothing to do with knowledge. It's all about belief. I do not believe in the existence of deities; ergo, I am an atheist. Do I know for a fact that they do not exist? No (though I consider it so unlikely as to make little difference), but if proven wrong with convincing empirical evidence, I would accept it. Ergo, I am agnostic, since I do not claim to "know" anything.

James Cameron's quote is harsh (calling anyone cowardly is typically uncalled for), and presumptuous (he purports to "know" there is no god.) I would rephrase it to say they cannot admit they don't believe in a god. That's the part that irks me.

Plenty of theists are agnostic too. They don't claim to "know" there's a god/gods, they simply have faith. (Of course many do claim to know for certain, which is an entirely separate can of worms.)

A self-identified "agnostic" either believes or doesn't believe. Or is in a transitional stage from one to the other. It's a way of hedging one's bets, but the catch is, you can't keep it up forever. You either believe in something or you don't, and if you're having trouble deciding which it is, it might be a good idea to go back and examine what caused you to have a crisis of faith in the first place.