first post and word of thanks from former fundie

[pakeha]

Looking back at Moochie's posts, it seems you completely misunderstood his point.
And about that 'opiate'- what do you reckon is the best defense against it?

[Bob from NJ]

Originally Posted by ORUgrad

gambling_cruiser "We are all humans with limited patience, limited frustration tolerance."


Behind the spiritual sounding language are these core teachings.

1. You cannot trust yourself. You need someone else to tell you what to do, say and believe.

2. Your mind is your enemy. It is the realm of the evil one. And he will deceive you if you let him.

3. You should only do god's will. Your will is opposed to god's will.

4. You are cursed and deserve death because of Adam and the bad apple.

5. God's anger is so great with you that he required the murder of his son in order for him to forgive you.

6. This gift of Christ actually only works if you "accept it" and believe he was god's son. If you are not sure or don't know or think it might not be true, then God will still be raging angry at you and you wont be "saved" from his wrath.

This of course produces a crapload of fear.

Critical thinking is not taught in the Christian world I was in. It has to be learned painfully. We were literally told to "turn off your mind."


Peace

you NAILED it! This is the same poison that drove me away from the faith (I was a convert at age 15) I could never accept Hell, or #2 above (your mind is your enemy) I tried to censor my thoughts for years, but it's poisonous to do that.

[BobTheDonkey]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

A lot of this "celtic church" business is probably a misapplication of the term. I only mean it in the most general way possible. I am not necessary an advocate of it rather am a supporter of the idea of live and let live and that one religion, no matter who it is, should not impose itself over a population and demand physical support from it, or demand some sort of sovereignty over it.
I started in on this topic in response to Moochi's comment on the "opiate of the masses". I was trying to say that religion is not something that will be abandoned as a way to control populations, any time in the near future.

There you go redefining your terms after you've been corrected. That way you don't ever have to admit you've made a mistake, or perhaps what you've been taught/heard is incorrect, etc. Way to go!

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey

There you go redefining your terms after you've been corrected. That way you don't ever have to admit you've made a mistake, or perhaps what you've been taught/heard is incorrect, etc. Way to go!

No, I'm just following Fiona's good advice and dropping the subject, which is, like she says, in her area, still rather divisive and the source of a lot of anxiety for some people. I was just bringing those things up because it is something I know a little bit about. Part of the reason I looked into this stuff is because of the type of thing she mentioned. My having forum conversations (a while back, on another forum) with someone who lives in Scotland and who happens to be Catholic. He was pretty knowledgeable on the local history and I was forced to have to study up on things to kind of keep up my end of the conversation. But, it is touchy and the guy was describing fanatical Protestant marches in his vicinity which did not make him feel comfortable.

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by pakeha

Looking back at Moochie's posts, it seems you completely misunderstood his point.
And about that 'opiate'- what do you reckon is the best defense against it?

I realise that. I was trying to work around it a little to kind of draw him out to explain what his point was. (that strategy did not work, evidently)
He was using some version of an older saying which was (or so used in the past) to describe people on a large scale, to inform some statement that was on an individual level. If you understand his point, how about your own explanation? Or is that not anything you have any stake in, and if that is so, I am happy enough to drop the whole thing. Sorry about any distress I might have caused you.

[ORUgrad]

Originally Posted by pakeha

And about that 'opiate'- what do you reckon is the best defense against it?

I will chime in here. I think Skeptics get caught up with the "smoke screens" believers throw up and don't often deal with the core issues of why "believing" is so dangerous. Looking at what prompted deconversion in myself, I noticed that I could learn to "explain" almost any seemingly contradictory biblical statement. Bible contradictions didn't do it. The character of Yahweh did it! Worshiping a mass murderering rage filled psychopath is impossible to defend. Charles Manson is doing life in prison for, among other things, ripping open the belly of a pregnant woman. This is the exact same thing Yahweh commanded the Israelites to do multiple times. Manson is considered a nut job. Yahweh is worshiped! WTF? The god Christians worship on Sunday morning is a mental creation. If the character of Yahweh is graphically pointed out contrasted with the character they THINK god has, there will be mental pain. It might take years to bear fruit. But this is far better than getting in the mud with believers over how long Jesus supposedly was on the cross or other such minutia.

Actually, a belief that a mass murderer is god is a dangerous belief to have. It leads to mass murdering (what a shocker). Christian history is filled with the fruit of believing a mass murderer is god. If I can undo that one belief- even if they keep a belief in a loving, benevolent god, it may not be reality, but it is much more likely to foster peace. Think about how Christian history would have been different if they took a position of "live and let live" rather than following the example of Yahweh.

[ORUgrad]

Originally Posted by Bob from NJ

you NAILED it! This is the same poison that drove me away from the faith (I was a convert at age 15) I could never accept Hell, or #2 above (your mind is your enemy) I tried to censor my thoughts for years, but it's poisonous to do that.

I'm always happy to hear of people getting free. All cults operate the same way. Just because a couple Billion people have fallen for it doesn't mean it is any less dangerous.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Bob from NJ

you NAILED it! This is the same poison that drove me away from the faith (I was a convert at age 15) I could never accept Hell, or #2 above (your mind is your enemy) I tried to censor my thoughts for years, but it's poisonous to do that.

That's the big one, IMO. Deep down, I think even the most deluded of us understand that logic is an all or nothing proposition. You can't legitimately think your way into a position where thinking isn't legitimate without casting doubt upon the thoughts that led you to that conclusion. Eventually it becomes an almost recursive unravelling of all the twisted knots, where abortive "don't think about that too much!" zones built up by the religion (or culture, as the case may be) are increasinly ignored.

As I've said, I never REALLY believed, though I tried. By age 12, this process described above was irreversible and accelerating. (Oddly, now that I'm much older and growing more and more political, I'm finding I'm finding that my childhood is repeating itself.)

[normdoering]

Originally Posted by Bob from NJ

... the same poison that drove me away from the faith (I was a convert at age 15) I could never accept Hell...

christoferL, a youtube Christian, did a video called "a lesson from the fire pit" where he burned bugs to warn people against hell and that provoked this response from me:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYW6cTWng-o

Originally Posted by Bob from NJ

...or #2 above (your mind is your enemy) I tried to censor my thoughts for years, but it's poisonous to do that.

Your thoughts about the Bible?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeyyBpKMumM

[Moochie]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

A lot of this "celtic church" business is probably a misapplication of the term. I only mean it in the most general way possible. I am not necessary an advocate of it rather am a supporter of the idea of live and let live and that one religion, no matter who it is, should not impose itself over a population and demand physical support from it, or demand some sort of sovereignty over it.
I started in on this topic in response to Moochi's comment on the "opiate of the masses". I was trying to say that religion is not something that will be abandoned as a way to control populations, any time in the near future.

I would have thought it wiser and more productive to educate "the masses" to be rational thinkers instead of filling their heads with more woo nonsense than they already possessed.

Why is it that some humans think it incumbent upon them to control others?


M.

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by Moochie

I would have thought it wiser and more productive to educate "the masses" to be rational thinkers instead of filling their heads with more woo nonsense than they already possessed.

Why is it that some humans think it incumbent upon them to control others?
M.

I brought this up earlier on a different thread but it might illustrate something. There was a recession in California in the early eighties and I ended up at the unemployment office. This was back in the day when they would actually have councilors who would interview you. I had this woman who worked there tell me, "Oh, you don't want another job in manufacturing. We are going to a 'service based' economy." That was in 1983. So, it was not something that just happened. This was something that was planned a long time ago to get us to where we are right now. Well, why not have us all productive and happy and relatively wealthy? Someone doesn't want us like that because the "they" (whoever that is that controls the world, or at least tries to) want us all running scared. We can't make a sign and go out and protest, if we have a job, because the next thing, one of the thousand other people who would love to have your job will be moving in and you moving out.
The same sort of thing with religion. Have "their" guys teaching at the seminaries and religious studies classes in colleges and raise up a new breed of clergy who are in on the plan, then when things get rough on the people, the church is telling the people to stay calm. Either that, or "just wait a little longer for the rapture".

[Fiona]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

I brought this up earlier on a different thread but it might illustrate something. There was a recession in California in the early eighties and I ended up at the unemployment office. This was back in the day when they would actually have councilors who would interview you. I had this woman who worked there tell me, "Oh, you don't want another job in manufacturing. We are going to a 'service based' economy." That was in 1983. So, it was not something that just happened.

If you mean the economic policies pursued in the UK and the USA, of course it was not something which just happened. It was a quite explicit political platform which people in your country and mine voted for consistently from about 1980. Were you asleep?

Quote:

This was something that was planned a long time ago to get us to where we are right now. Well, why not have us all productive and happy and relatively wealthy?

So you do not think that the Chicago school believed what they said? You do not think that the politicians believed it? You do not think the people who voted for it believed it?

Fact is that it was right out there where you could see it. It was not hidden and it was not difficult to vote against it. Not enough people wanted to. It is as simple as that.

Quote:

Someone doesn't want us like that because the "they" (whoever that is that controls the world, or at least tries to) want us all running scared. We can't make a sign and go out and protest, if we have a job, because the next thing, one of the thousand other people who would love to have your job will be moving in and you moving out.

That someone is us. We, the people, voted to destroy the unions so there was no protection; we, the people, voted for "right to work states"; we, the people, voted to undermine the safety net which lets people protest with some hope of success; we, the people, voted to make poor people poorer and rich people richer. Nobody made us do it.

Quote:

The same sort of thing with religion. Have "their" guys teaching at the seminaries and religious studies classes in colleges and raise up a new breed of clergy who are in on the plan, then when things get rough on the people, the church is telling the people to stay calm. Either that, or "just wait a little longer for the rapture".

A new breed of clergy? Where did you get that idea? Do you know the children's hymn " All things bright and beautiful"? I see absolutely no evidence that the clergy have ever been any different: why would they be?

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by Fiona

It was a quite explicit political platform which people in your country and mine voted for consistently from about 1980. Were you asleep?

I was, and still am to a certain extent, a political talk radio show junkie. I was not asleep, that's for sure. In the US, no one ever presented it as a choice, much less allow anyone to vote one way or the other. Maybe in the UK people were more aware of a plan, but not here.

Quote:

So you do not think that the Chicago school believed what they said? You do not think that the politicians believed it? You do not think the people who voted for it believed it?

All liars who were taught to lie in Chicago, and meant to destroy America.

Quote:

Fact is that it was right out there where you could see it. It was not hidden and it was not difficult to vote against it. Not enough people wanted to. It is as simple as that.

Not Here. Never heard of it, and not because I wasn't listening.

Quote:

That someone is us. We, the people, voted to destroy the unions so there was no protection; we, the people, voted for "right to work states"; we, the people, voted to undermine the safety net which lets people protest with some hope of success; we, the people, voted to make poor people poorer and rich people richer. Nobody made us do it.

Crappy politicians.

Quote:

A new breed of clergy? Where did you get that idea? Do you know the children's hymn " All things bright and beautiful"? I see absolutely no evidence that the clergy have ever been any different: why would they be?

I do. Are you a church goer? I don't need you to answer that. I try to keep up a little on what's going on theologically. Plus my cousin who went through the system tells me about it. I see a lot of change from how it was like thirty years ago, and it seems to change faster, as time goes by.

[Fiona]

You never heard of monetarism? Reaganomics? Milton Friedman? Deregulation? "Trickle-down"?

These policies were never put before the voters? Not according to Wiki:

Quote:

n his 1980 campaign speeches, Reagan presented his economic proposals as merely a return to the free-enterprise principles that had been in favor before the Great Depression. At the same time he attracted a following from the supply-side economics movement, formed in opposition to Keynesian demand-stimulus economics. This movement produced some of the strongest supporters for Reagan's policies during his term in office

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by Fiona

You never heard of monetarism? Reaganomics? Milton Friedman? Deregulation? "Trickle-down"?

These policies were never put before the voters? Not according to Wiki:

OK, with hindsight one could see what the results were, but people were not asked if they wanted their economy destroyed.
Another thing is that it was not free market, completely, because companies were being subsidized by the government (with tax breaks and other incentives) to send their manufacturing overseas.
Reagan was a huge liar who invented using teleprompters and Obama is carrying on the tradition. Fortunately I have voted independent, so can not be blamed for the likes of Reagan.

[Fiona]

From the 1983 State of the Union address:

Quote:

Thanks to the Task Force, private sector initiatives are now underway in all 50 States of the Union, and thousands of working people have been helped in making the shift from dead-end jobs and low-demand skills to the growth areas of high technology and the service economy

(bolding mine)

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by Fiona

From the 1983 State of the Union address:
(bolding mine)

Like I said, hindsight.
It was not explained that the so-called dead-end jobs were going away, forever. It was made to look as if some fortunate people would be able to advance. Also, the "private sector initiatives" is a flat-out lie. That is, unless it means the public sector interfering with the private sector. But it is worded to be deceptive. People were not told, "Unless you have super high level technical skills, you will be mopping floors, with nothing in between."

[pakeha]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

Quote:

Originally Posted by pakeha
Looking back at Moochie's posts, it seems you completely misunderstood his point.
And about that 'opiate'- what do you reckon is the best defense against it?

I realise that. I was trying to work around it a little to kind of draw him out to explain what his point was. (that strategy did not work, evidently)
He was using some version of an older saying which was (or so used in the past) to describe people on a large scale, to inform some statement that was on an individual level. If you understand his point, how about your own explanation? Or is that not anything you have any stake in, and if that is so, I am happy enough to drop the whole thing. Sorry about any distress I might have caused you.

What distress are you talking about, Ethnikos?
Mine?

I am astonished you post up historical claptrap here.
That's not distress.

Keep in mind Christians are torturing and killing in the name of exorcising children declared witches by Christian pastors in Nigeria. Carrying on the tradition of the Presbyters, don't you think?
Or are Nigerians not True Scotsmen?

Back to 'the opiate of the people' question you ducked, what is a good defense against 'woo'?
We've seen from your posts that when children are infected with woo at an early age it's difficult to recover any sort of mental balance.
I'd be interested in hearing an opinion from you on the subject.

ORUgrad- thanks for such excellent posts. Great reading.

[Moochie]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

I brought this up earlier on a different thread but it might illustrate something. There was a recession in California in the early eighties and I ended up at the unemployment office. This was back in the day when they would actually have councilors who would interview you. I had this woman who worked there tell me, "Oh, you don't want another job in manufacturing. We are going to a 'service based' economy." That was in 1983. So, it was not something that just happened. This was something that was planned a long time ago to get us to where we are right now. Well, why not have us all productive and happy and relatively wealthy? Someone doesn't want us like that because the "they" (whoever that is that controls the world, or at least tries to) want us all running scared. We can't make a sign and go out and protest, if we have a job, because the next thing, one of the thousand other people who would love to have your job will be moving in and you moving out.
The same sort of thing with religion. Have "their" guys teaching at the seminaries and religious studies classes in colleges and raise up a new breed of clergy who are in on the plan, then when things get rough on the people, the church is telling the people to stay calm. Either that, or "just wait a little longer for the rapture".

Apropos of clergy, and the general discussion here, this talk by Dan Dennett might be of interest. Thanks to soikins for linking it in his thread.


M.

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by pakeha

What distress are you talking about, Ethnikos?

You seem to be emotionally disturbed by people believing in God. I don't mean to torture anyone over it. You can continue on with whatever you believe in. I feel bad for making some negative remarks to anyone, about burning in Hell, or whatever, in the past. I need to save that for people who actually claim to believe in God but have some really way out there things to say about Him. Anyone who just flat out denies the existence of god is safe from any hell fire from me.

Quote:

Back to 'the opiate of the people' question you ducked, what is a good defense against 'woo'?

I don't think there is one. In my example I gave, of my own personal experience, I had to call on the power of the higher woo to protect me from the influence of the lower woo.

Quote:

We've seen from your posts that when children are infected with woo at an early age it's difficult to recover any sort of mental balance.
I'd be interested in hearing an opinion from you on the subject.

I do not feel like I suffer a mental imbalance. If I told my oldest sister, "No, that can't be right! It has to be real!", I would be unbalanced. I am working on what I consider a sceptical, scientific approach to God, and the attached woo. It might not seem critical, to you, but it does to me.

[ORUgrad]

Eth, believing in a god who commands that pregnant women be ripped open and worshiping that god as a loving creator while at the same time thinking someone like Charles Manson is a sicko who should rot in prison for doing the exact same thing is quite mentally imbalanced don't you think? I am assuming of course you think Manson is a sicko who should rot in jail. If that is not the case, please correct me.

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by ORUgrad

Eth, believing in a god who commands that pregnant women be ripped open and worshiping that god as a loving creator while at the same time thinking someone like Charles Manson is a sicko who should rot in prison for doing the exact same thing is quite mentally imbalanced don't you think? I am assuming of course you think Manson is a sicko who should rot in jail. If that is not the case, please correct me.

I think something about your education has made you loose sight of the nuance of Biblical literature. I might not be saying that right, but I think you are a little hung up on the "Thus saith The Lord" thing to see what the literature is really trying to get across. Everything has to be so hard-core cut-and-dried, 100% pure, right out of the very mouth of God, sort of thing, as if they had to seriously cement their authority. "They" being whoever was the powers-that-be who had the ultimate control of the education systems you were operating in. This is what I was talking about a while back that you have to get over. The brain-washing that one version of religion chooses to use to maintain control. You might be able to get away from that mentality, once you realize that you do not have to have divine proof of your authority, and that you are a normal person with an opinion, just like everyone else.
One day. you will look at those verses and laugh and wonder how those ever got you upset. Since you repeated this claim enough, I finally broke down and took a look. I was wondering why these were not used at the normal atheist web sites. Now I see why. God is not commanding the women being ripped open. Things happen at the hands of evil men. They either were historical facts, concerning invaders, or a threat that never was carried out.

[BobTheDonkey]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

I think something about your education has made you loose sight of the nuance of Biblical literature. I might not be saying that right, but I think you are a little hung up on the "Thus saith The Lord" thing to see what the literature is really trying to get across. Everything has to be so hard-core cut-and-dried, 100% pure, right out of the very mouth of God, sort of thing, as if they had to seriously cement their authority. "They" being whoever was the powers-that-be who had the ultimate control of the education systems you were operating in. This is what I was talking about a while back that you have to get over. The brain-washing that one version of religion chooses to use to maintain control. You might be able to get away from that mentality, once you realize that you do not have to have divine proof of your authority, and that you are a normal person with an opinion, just like everyone else.
One day. you will look at those verses and laugh and wonder how those ever got you upset. Since you repeated this claim enough, I finally broke down and took a look. I was wondering why these were not used at the normal atheist web sites. Now I see why. God is not commanding the women being ripped open. Things happen at the hands of evil men. They either were historical facts, concerning invaders, or a threat that never was carried out.

And how do you cope with the fact that God encouraged, even ordered, these terrible things to happen?

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by BobTheDonkey

And how do you cope with the fact that God encouraged, even ordered, these terrible things to happen?

I'm waiting for ORUgrad's new thread.

[pakeha]

[quote=Ethnikos;5272291]

Quote:

You seem to be emotionally disturbed by people believing in God. I don't mean to torture anyone over it. You can continue on with whatever you believe in. I feel bad for making some negative remarks to anyone, about burning in Hell, or whatever, in the past. I need to save that for people who actually claim to believe in God but have some really way out there things to say about Him. Anyone who just flat out denies the existence of god is safe from any hell fire from me.

Sorry, Ethnikos, for being so unclear. I'm not emotionally disturbed by people believing in God.
Heaven forbid.
What is disturbing, and and I think not only to me, is using a belief in God as a reason to deny others' rights.
And especially in a context of historical untruths.

I

Quote:

don't think there is one. In my example I gave, of my own personal experience, I had to call on the power of the higher woo to protect me from the influence of the lower woo.

Ethnikos, is there really any reason to think that woo protected you from woo?

Quote:

I do not feel like I suffer a mental imbalance. If I told my oldest sister, "No, that can't be right! It has to be real!", I would be unbalanced. I am working on what I consider a sceptical, scientific approach to God, and the attached woo. It might not seem critical, to you, but it does to me.

That wasn't my point Ethnikos. The point is you've lived for some time with a belief system that you've learned was false. That's not easy to recover from, especially when the person who has influenced you in the matter of this belief is a family member.

[ORUgrad]

Eth, you need to go into politics. You are avoiding my questions and putting up smoke screens. I'm not going down the rabbit hole with you again. I toss out one simple example of the insanity of Yahweh. Don't like it? Ok. How about the command to stone rebellious children? How about drowning the entire planet? Wiping out whole races of people? Take your pick. Why wont you answer the question? If you think the Bible does not reflect the nature of the creator god, then say so. If you DO think it reflects the nature of god, then SAY so. If you think the Bible reflects an ancient mythological understanding of god, then say so. You are trying to tip toe through the tulips and avoid a direct answer. Answer my question without the spin. If you can't or wont, you are being dishonest. You can keep your god belief. I want to know why you believe YHWH is the god you worship on Sunday morning (or pray to). In any of your supposed mystical encounters, did god claim to be YHWH?

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by pakeha

The point is you've lived for some time with a belief system that you've learned was false. That's not easy to recover from, especially when the person who has influenced you in the matter of this belief is a family member.

I realized a long time ago that my sister told me stuff that wasn't 100% accurate. For example, that the vice-president was the guy who lost the election. That may have seemed true to her because in some cases, the guy who comes in second in the primary will be selected as a running mate to the guy who won. Years later, when I discovered that what she told me was not true, it was a little disturbing to me, but mainly because I had not checked it out for myself and was happily relying on the word of someone else. It made me seem a little negligent, in my own eyes. I never dwelled on a thought like; 'The world is not what I thought it was, woe is me'. And I never had any problem accepting the truth, that not all vice-presidents were the losers against the guy who eventually became president.

btw. thanks for making that clear, I appreciate that. Sorry about not addressing all that, completely, at this time.

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by ORUgrad

I want to know why you believe YHWH is the god you worship on Sunday morning (or pray to). In any of your supposed mystical encounters, did god claim to be YHWH?

No. I never had God talk to me directly. I have never had any sort of direct confirmation that there is one God, or that the Highest God is who intervenes in events on this planet. Not by direct evidence from personal experience. I believe that there is a divine inspiration that has helped me along, through the years, to find further insight into the nature of God, which would seem to make my pursuit of YHWH seem very wasteful, if that was not the proper identity of God. It would be foolish for me to use that last statement for the sole rationale to hold onto that belief, in light of other hypothetical revelation that might occur at a future date. But as of right now, I would have to say that, for some reason, the god of a nomadic hill-dwelling tribe, who were living on the very edge of any sort of human-sustainable environment, is in fact the very God of the universe.

btw: I listened to the whole video that Moochie linked to in his last post, of Dan Dennett. It is about, to me, how to say you believe in God when you really don't, in a pseudo-philosophical way that makes it almost seem like you really do believe in a god. (not that he advocates that, but points it out in books written by people supposedly supporting the notion of god)

[ORUgrad]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

No. I never had God talk to me directly. I have never had any sort of direct confirmation that there is one God, or that the Highest God is who intervenes in events on this planet. Not by direct evidence from personal experience.

But as of right now, I would have to say that, for some reason, the god of a nomadic hill-dwelling tribe, who were living on the very edge of any sort of human-sustainable environment, is in fact the very God of the universe.

HUH?? Eth, you are in the Twilight Zone. You are saying you have absolutely no evidence from any source that the divine direction you claim to have is even god at all. Yet "for some reason" you believe that the god of the "hill-dwelling tribe" who was a barbaric psycho is really the loving god of the universe. Do you not recognize that your above two paragraphs are indicating you have been brainwashed in some way? A rational person would not conclude such things. You are not simply drawing incorrect conclusions or misinterpreting evidence. You ARE DRAWING CONCLUSIONS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE YOU DO HAVE. In the first paragraph, you are basically stating you have no evidence that god really even exists at all. In the second paragraph, you are stating that even in the face of no evidence, you believe god not only exists, but that he is the genocidal maniac YHWH. "For some reason" you are coming to absurd conclusions. People come to absurd conclusions for a reason. Dig a little deeper my friend. What is that reason? There is a reason you are picking YHWH over Zeus. And it isn't because YHWH is a nicer dude. You were brainwashed to believe such as a child and society reinforces the belief. If you will keep answering the question "why" when you state a belief, you will find out the reason.

So my next questions to you are:

1. Why would someone who has had no direct evidence for god choose not only to believe in god, but also to make the illogical and irrational leap to also believe that that all loving god is actually the vicious ancient Jewish god who doesn't give a spit about anyone unless they are Israelite and are willing to worship him?

2. Why would someone even WANT YHWH to be the real god? Why defend such a monster?

[JoeyDonuts]

ORUGrad,

Are you still in Tulsa, land of Rhema-toids, Kenneth Hagin Campmeetings, Pastor Bob Tilton's Dumpster-O'-Prayer Requests, and the Disembodied Giant Scary Hands?

[ORUgrad]

Yep. Tulsa, low cost of living and low value on critical thinking!

[JoeyDonuts]

Hear, hear.

One of my good friends graduated from ORU not too long ago. I'm not certain how much utility she's getting out of the degree, since she works at a salon now.

Oh well. She's the only one I trust to touch my coif anyomre.

You know, even though you can't spit in this town without hitting a megachurch, there are freethinkers around. We just keep our chins up and our heads down.

I swear, you declare your lack of faith around here and you might as well be a leprous H1N1-spewing beggar on the street.

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by ORUgrad

. . .Yet "for some reason" you believe that the god of the "hill-dwelling tribe" who was a. . .

I think you have that turned around a little bit.
I believe that, for some reason. . . Not that for some reason I believe that. . .
I do have reasons to believe it, and I do have reasons to believe why it happens that it works out in the way that it does. I am not exactly prepared, at this time, to explain it, so I was saying, "for some reason" because it is something rather obscure, even for me.

[ORUgrad]

Originally Posted by JoeyDonuts

Hear, hear.

One of my good friends graduated from ORU not too long ago. I'm not certain how much utility she's getting out of the degree, since she works at a salon now.

Oh well. She's the only one I trust to touch my coif anyomre.

You know, even though you can't spit in this town without hitting a megachurch, there are freethinkers around. We just keep our chins up and our heads down.

I swear, you declare your lack of faith around here and you might as well be a leprous H1N1-spewing beggar on the street.

ORU is finally making some positive changes- like booting Richard Roberts for horrible mismanagement of the school as well as unethical practices. Surprisingly, ORU produces a number of skeptics. It is the dirty little secret of the school. When I got my M.Div there, they gave us all a cheap, mass produced KJV Bible that Richard had signed his name in. I was livid! I didn;t want that crazy man's name in my Bible.

Tulsa isn't a bad place to live. There are definitely some really crazy churches here. There are some really wonderful people here too- even believers. I don't have a problem with people who live their lives as the best person they can be and keep their religion to themselves. It is the glossy eyed "brainwashed" robots for Jesus that want to convert me to their way of non thinking I am concerned about. These are the same people who talk about God's judgement, etc.

Does anyone else feel that Jesus is presented like he is god's PR man?!?

[ORUgrad]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

I think you have that turned around a little bit.
I believe that, for some reason. . . Not that for some reason I believe that. . .
I do have reasons to believe it, and I do have reasons to believe why it happens that it works out in the way that it does. I am not exactly prepared, at this time, to explain it, so I was saying, "for some reason" because it is something rather obscure, even for me.

Ahh. Here we have our ending point then. "I believe but for reasons I'm not going to tell." Kinda hard to argue with that one. They must be amazingly compelling reasons. Too bad we can't here them...

[Bob from NJ]

I could write a book in response to this video. First off, I can't stand to see creatures suffer, even insects (which are possibly the most brutal of all life-forms on earth) and I'm having some trouble typing now...

He makes his point exceedingly well, that a Christian is pushy because he doesn't want to see people's souls burn.

The most offesnsive part of this dogma of Hell is that God would reduce a human being to some writhing, agonized thing and just leave him in that awful state. The idea is degrading to the human soul (or mind and character if you don't believe in the soul)

This evil viewpoint reduces a man's life and all his struggles to the merest punctuation mark at the beginning of his eternal sentence. See, WE mere mortals (sociopaths excluded) want to rescue the bugs from the flames- but God is supposed to be content leaving human beings in the pit of fire forever?

We're supposed to forgive others, but God will only forgive us if we accept His Contract? Sell our souls to His dogma?

I think the sacrifice of Christ was meant to free people from the endless fires of their own guilt and regret IN THIS LIFE. I know a soldier who feels hopelessly stained because he killed people in war- he NEEDS something to help him believe he can wash away his regret and guilt.

Even if the blood of Christ is merely symbolic, it's an illustration of what we're supposed to do; forgive others, and forgive ourselves and move on. Otherwise we'll be like the sould in Hell, endlessly self-condemning. I think giving us the concepts of repentence and forgiveness, and the means to ease regret, are much greater miracles than deliverance from some artificial sentence in the next life.

[Bob from NJ]

If Cthulhu awakens (on 12/21/2012 of course) as herald of the Great Old Ones, they're gonna wipe us out and replace Earth's ecosystem with extra-dimensional monsters.

But if Jesus Christ returns, He's gonna burn up the world and then torture most of humanity for all eternity, all the while saying it's because He loves us.

Hmmmmm....so who's more evil?

[Ethnikos]

Originally Posted by ORUgrad

Ahh. Here we have our ending point then. "I believe but for reasons I'm not going to tell." Kinda hard to argue with that one. They must be amazingly compelling reasons. Too bad we can't here them...

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying, again. I don't know if you noticed in a couple of posts, earlier in this thread, I was saying that I feel like looking at the existing evidence for making determinations about God. What I was explaining was my opinion that, if one was to be so ambitious as to want to have specific knowledge of God, that the means of gaining that knowledge would not be by invoking some sort of metaphysical experience.
I also listed titles of books I had on order that were meant to have the purpose of substantiating some of my hypothesis concerning the identity of God. (buying books has a way of running up big bills, so I can only accumulate them slowly) These books are of a serious nature, about as serious as you can find of this sort of topic, which has to do with a supernatural being.
I got one in the mail, Monday, by Tigay, that analyzes names found on inscriptions that date to ancient Israel. In the introduction, I read, ". . .Y. Kaufmann who argued that polytheism was swiftly and effectively eradicated under Moses, from whose time onward monotheism became the seminal idea of Israelite history and culture." That sounds very impressive, but then in order to pursue that thread, I would have to buy another book, since I am not close to a university library, where I could just look it up. Go to Amazon and look it up, you find a listing for it (looking at the list of cited books, in the back of my new book), The Religion of Israel: from its Beginning to the Babylonian Exile. Great, then you look at the price, $36. That kind of ruins the fun and I think, well maybe next month I can afford it.
To get back to your post, it is not some mysterious thing that I have that I am holding back, it is just the time and money consumed trying to put together a substantial argument. Right now it is fuzzy. Now how does what I am working on have to do with your concerns. If you read the above quote, you might wonder what the hell the author meant by effectively. Could that mean, amazingly violent? I think the answer is, perhaps. The next question might be, could it have been important enough for this revolutionary change to happen when and where it did, to justify that efficiency? My answer, again, is, perhaps.
Doesn't look like the questioning and answering is making much headway into solving everything about God, here. No, but if those two answers could be shown to be most likely correct, it would be a huge advancement towards the goal. The reason being, there is a popular current speculation that none of that ever happened and Israel never got to a point where they were strictly monotheistic. If that is true, then all of the history of Israel, and with it, the Bible, are ready for the trash bin. If in fact Israel was monotheistic, then their God is great. And that great god would rise to a stature that would justify believers in that god, to cease searching for any higher god than him.
So there is a basic outline of the thesis, and you can see it needs some work in order to make it halfway acceptable. At risk of having it destroyed on the spot, I would allow that much out, just to show that I am not using some secret knowledge in my back pocket to base my belief in the god of the Old Testament. Like I said earlier, none of my personal experience puts a definite identity to whoever it was doing things for me. But I have an inclination, that would seen natural enough considering my background, to believe that this god who has manifested himself to me would be the same god manifesting himself through history.

[Cynic]

Originally Posted by Ethnikos

Like I said earlier, none of my personal experience puts a definite identity to whoever it was doing things for me. But I have an inclination, that would seem natural enough considering my background, to believe that this god who has manifested himself to me would be the same god manifesting himself through history.

Before you go out of your way trying to identify who's been doing stuff for you, it might be helpful to first show that something has been "done" for you. Failing to verify that a given phenomenon actually happened has wasted more time and effort than I would know how to quantify.

[Arkyrion]

Greetings. Like many of you who have already told your stories, I too was raised in a strict Fundamentalist home. I accepted blindly, with the Child-like faith that is so vaunted by the church, that God loves us and sent his son to die for us. It wasn't until a year or two ago that I finally began to seriously question my beliefs (a special thanks to Pure Argent for sparking that doubt). Why would a just and loving God punish his creations because they were tricked, in their innocence, by yet another of God's creatures? And why, if God is good, does evil exist? If God created everything, he must have created evil. And why did God order his "chosen" people to embark on a campaign of conquest and genocide?

When I approached my pastor with these questions, I was given what I now know to be the typical bilk of those trying to justify the actions of their God. "God is ultimately just beyond human standards. God allowed evil to exist. God allowed evil to come into the world so that he could redeem us." At the end of the meeting, I had no answers and more questions. According to the Bible, the angels and demons have no free will. Free will is one of the things that sets humanity apart from the rest of God's creation, according to my former denomination. If that is the case, and angels have no free will and are mindless automatons in the service of God, how does one explain Lucifer's fall?

From there, I began to further explore the Scriptures, finding again and again how the God of the OT continually showed himself to be no more than a two-year throwing his toys around when they displeased him. I refused to follow a God like that.

Now, I still consider myself to be a Christian, but only in the sense that I follow the teachings of Christ (as they apply to humans, not those including God).

And thanks to all of you here on the JREF forums who have helped me further cement my beliefs.