Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?

by Greatest I am Sun Feb 08, 2015 2:17 am

First topic message reminder :

Embrace Judeo-Christian culture and values! Is this politician serious?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H2ED8A8RXeY

The apostle’s creed shows that Christianity is based on having to embrace barbaric human sacrifice and the notion that the guilty should be forgiven if a suitable human sacrifice is made to God.

I suggest that having another innocent person suffer for the wrongs you have done, --- so that you might escape responsibility for having done them, --- is immoral. Immoral regardless of the victim volunteering or not which is not the case with Jesus.

That is one of many moral tenets that have caused secular governments to reject Judeo-Christian culture and values.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

The bible is a compilation of evil acts by a satanic God and no moral man would every push to have Judeo-Christian culture and values implemented as our law. The U.S. is the closes to that ideal and their jail statistics are the most dismal in the free world.

Would you promote Judeo-Christian culture and values?

Regards
DL

by polyglide Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:30 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
They are not demands, they suggest the things that are in the best interests of mankind and for his benifit.

There is no mention of must not.

by polyglide Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:50 pm

Norm Deplume.
The way soem people find fault you would think there was a reward.

by polyglide Mon Mar 30, 2015 2:52 pm

Even, SOME.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Mon Mar 30, 2015 3:50 pm

I think you need to re-read them. Unless you're being facetious of course. Otherwise "you shall not" is quite clearly a demand and not a suggestion. You made a rash claim that is again contradicted by the evidence. Arguing otherwise is just silly. Especially if you're going to try and claim a significant difference between you must not and you shall not.

by polyglide Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:36 pm

Dr, Sheldon,
Look in the dictionary.

by Greatest I am Tue Mar 31, 2015 2:58 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
They are not demands, they suggest the things that are in the best interests of mankind and for his benifit.

There is no mention of must not.

When a must is given, then all other things are must not.

I don't know how you use English but though shalt not place another God above me also means you must not place another God above me.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Tue Mar 31, 2015 7:19 pm

Thou shalt is olde englishe for 'you must'. Smile

The 10 commandments are commands and a command is a demand. It's not a choice.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 10:28 am

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Look in the dictionary.

You shall not is quite clearly a demand, even before the threat of eternal torture is added. To claim otherwise is rank stupidity. I always check dictionary definitions for words I am unsure of. Your own inability to do so, coupled with the propensity you have shown for bare faced lies about word definitions is written in your previous posts for all to see.

by polyglide Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:07 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Have you heard of obligation? no I thought not.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:14 am

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Have you heard of obligation? no I thought not.

More supercilious falsity. Have you heard that the first letter of a new sentence should be capitalised? No, I though not.

Why do you do this to yourself? You surely must realise anyone who reads that is laughing at you?

by polyglide Wed Apr 01, 2015 11:33 am

Dr, Sheldon,
Surely you mean with me.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 12:55 pm

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
Surely you mean with me.

No, I meant precisely what I said. If you're claiming your posts are a gigantic troll then others would have to know that to be the case before they could be claimed to be laughing with you. Though of course this would also make the unconvincing assumption such behaviour is funny. I can't say I find such trolling funny, as it always strikes me as juvenile. A class clown embarrassed at his own intellectual shortcomings driven to disruption to conceal it , is not my idea of humour, but when such a clown forces their way into the conversations of others just to disrupt, well that speaks for itself.

Are you in fact claiming you're trolling with that post?

by Norm Deplume Wed Apr 01, 2015 1:59 pm

polyglide wrote:
Look in the dictionary.

Whenever someone suggests this my instinct is to check the OED.

"Shalt" is a form of "shall" which in turn is derived from "should".

Shall has twenty-nine distinct meanings (which may have up to ten sub-meanings).

The relevant one for the context is this:
shall, v.

(ʃæl, unstressed ʃ(ə)l)

Pa. tense should (ʃʊd, ʃəd). .

B.II.5 In commands or instructions.
In the second person, equivalent to an imperative.
Chiefly in Biblical language, of Divine commandments, rendering the jussive future of the Heb. and Vulgate. (In OE. the imperative is used in the ten commandments.)

1340 Ayenb. 5 Þe uerste heste þet god made‥is þis: þou ne sselt habbe uele godes. 1382 Wyclif Exod. xx. 7 Thow shalt not tak the name of the Lord thi God in veyn.

It is clear from the above emboldened entry that although shalt might under some circumstances be equivalent to should in the specific instance of the biblical commandments it is not advice but an order.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 2:53 pm

Thorough and eloquent. Now why do I suspect Polyglide will either blatantly ignore it or dishonestly contradict it with some vague reference to the inability of others to read a dictionary? Perhaps I'm just a cynic at heart?

by Norm Deplume Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:24 pm

Or a prophet?

by Greatest I am Wed Apr 01, 2015 3:41 pm

snowyflake wrote:Thou shalt is olde englishe for 'you must'. The 10 commandments are commands and a command is a demand. It's not a choice.

But, but, they say A & E had free will or free choice.

Those pesky command play havoc with free choice.

That aside, thank God he deceived Eve and caused her to elevate us or we would still be as bright as bricks.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Wed Apr 01, 2015 7:42 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:Or a prophet?

Well if you relax the criteria for prophecy to predicting events that you know will occur as Polyglide suggested in his laughable "evidence" that old testament prophecies had been fulfilled then we can all be prophets. I hereby predict there will wars in the future, and that man will turn against his brother, and that there will be evil, and that countries will rise and fall.

How's that, vague enough I think, but that kind of guff seems to satisfy Polyglide that prophecies have been fulfilled.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Apr 02, 2015 1:24 pm

Another quote from Professor Dawkins that seems salient to this thread topic and the question of whether it is morally right to embrace religions that advocate egregiously immoral acts.

"To devote one's moral reflections to constructing elaborate rationales for past genocides, human sacrifices, and the like is to invite applications of similar reasoning to future actions."

Very apropos I thought.

by Greatest I am Thu Apr 02, 2015 3:20 pm

+1

Christians still make a hero out of Noah, a traitor to all of mankind, who turned against us to follow an alien genocidal son murdering God.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 04, 2015 4:08 pm

A more puzzling question is how a being that purportedly possesses omniscience and omniscience didn't know, and couldn't predict how his own creation would behave, or even more puzzling why the same being that is purportedly omni-benevolent drowned every living creature with a few exceptions and every human on the planet except one small family, but failed a second time to curb the human behaviour it objects to, and failed a second time to know or predict in advance that this would happen.

Given the absurdity of the Noah myth, and these logical paradoxes what kind of subjective, overly credulous believer would be able to avoid even a shred of doubt about this claim? Indeed how any halfway intelligent person doesn't die of embarrassment at the claims obvious absurdity is quite beyond me.

by snowyflake Sat Apr 04, 2015 5:32 pm

For some reason, Doc, when god is the mass murdering SOB it's ok with Christians and other believers. And mass murder committed in the name of god is ok too.

by Norm Deplume Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:06 pm

In the OT God is referred to as Teragrammaton - the four-letter word. This is supposedly YHWH. I can think of a better one.

by Greatest I am Sat Apr 04, 2015 6:42 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:[

A more puzzling question is how a being that purportedly possesses omniscience and omniscience didn't know, and couldn't predict how his own creation would behave, or even more puzzling why the same being that is purportedly omni-benevolent drowned every living creature with a few exceptions and every human on the planet except one small family, but failed a second time to curb the human behaviour it objects to, and failed a second time to know or predict in advance that this would happen.

Given the absurdity of the Noah myth, and these logical paradoxes what kind of subjective, overly credulous believer would be able to avoid even a shred of doubt about this claim? Indeed how any halfway intelligent person doesn't die of embarrassment at the claims obvious absurdity is quite beyond me.

Not beyond me.

We are all liars it seems.

Have you noticed that, believer or not, the huge majority od us claim to be good and to venerate life yet the world is always at war.

We are either all liars or not walking our talk.

I was going to do an O.P. on this but figured having my fellow religionists hate me was enough and I did not want my non-believing friends to hate me as well.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:06 pm

snowyflake wrote:For some reason, Doc, when god is the mass murdering SOB it's ok with Christians and other believers. And mass murder committed in the name of god is ok too.

I like what this Jewish clip says of God and his covenant.

It all depends whose side it looks like God is on.

God on trial.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

To Christians, God is on their side and thus they do not care, moral or not, who God kills.

This shows clearly that a religion can corrupt a persons morality.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:12 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:In the OT God is referred to as Teragrammaton - the four-letter word. This is supposedly YHWH. I can think of a better one.

Poor spelling and counting. Norm but what name did you have in mind?

Adding "er" makes 6 letters. That is if we are thinking of the same word that begins with a capital F.

That word just does not do justice to such a prick thought.

Perhaps a new O.P. is in order to find God's perfect name. Even Satan wont' do as even she is not that big of a prick.

Satan is depicted as female in the Vatican art but I am not sure if a woman can be called a prick. Being French, we do not have an equivalent term so I am not sure if that is a unisex term or not.

Dr. S. Help my grammar out here buddy.

Regards
DL

by snowyflake Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:13 pm

Are you kidding me, GIA? What have we been talking about but the immorality of religion. ALL religions. Even yours because it asks you put aside your reason to believe in third eyes and other bunk that is not founded in science. There is no proof of it. And to my mind it is immoral to tell people lies about things. What you believe is not the same thing as what is true or real.

by Greatest I am Sat Apr 04, 2015 7:29 pm

snowyflake wrote:Are you kidding me, GIA? What have we been talking about but the immorality of religion. ALL religions. Even yours because it asks you put aside your reason to believe in third eyes and other bunk that is not founded in science. There is no proof of it. And to my mind it is immoral to tell people lies about things. What you believe is not the same thing as what is true or real.

I agree. That is why I have claimed apotheosis and speak of it as a fact. The fact that you do not want to believe it does not make my fact and experience a lie.

That is why I try hard never to lie and am quite willing to take any test that you would accept.

Science has shown that there is what the ancients call a third or single eye and much of Eastern theology and philosophy is based on it.

All I preach is a method of unifying the brain and reaching our higher mind.

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

Regards
DL

by Norm Deplume Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:22 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Norm Deplume wrote:In the OT God is referred to as Teragrammaton - the four-letter word. This is supposedly YHWH. I can think of a better one.

Poor spelling and counting. Norm but what name did you have in mind?

Adding "er" makes 6 letters. That is if we are thinking of the same word that begins with a capital F.

That word just does not do justice to such a prick thought.

Perhaps a new O.P. is in order to find God's perfect name. Even Satan wont' do as even she is not that big of a prick.

Satan is depicted as female in the Vatican art but I am not sure if a woman can be called a prick. Being French, we do not have an equivalent term so I am not sure if that is a unisex term or not.

Dr. S. Help my grammar out here buddy.

Regards
DL

I wondered what you were on about until I saw that I has missed out a T.

Try a word beginning with C. (Hint: it is not clot.)

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:32 pm

Greatest I am wrote: I agree. That is why I have claimed apotheosis and speak of it as a fact. The fact that you do not want to believe it does not make my fact and experience a lie.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Saying something is a fact doesn't make it a fact either. I'm not sure I'd describe it as a lie as you seem sincere, but as I've said many times one may see exactly what sincere faith may achieve in revealing truth by interviewing the permanent inmates of any mental institution.

That is why I try hard never to lie and am quite willing to take any test that you would accept.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I have no reason to doubt your honesty, but someone who has been locked up because they think they are Napoleon Bonaparte may be 100% sincere, in fact the more sincerely they believed it the more likely would their incarceration be.

Science has shown that there is what the ancients call a third or single eye
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No it hasn't, at all, ever. Hitchen's razor applies again.

and much of Eastern theology and philosophy is based on it.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Indeed, and on equally spurious hokum.

All I preach is a method of unifying the brain and reaching our higher mind.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Which you're entitled to do, but when you come into a public forum and claim "evidence" without producing it then others are entitled to point this out, and apply Hitchen's razor.

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:34 pm

Norm Deplume wrote: Try a word beginning with C. (Hint: it is not clot.)

Chat?

by Greatest I am Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:48 pm

Norm Deplume wrote:[

Poor spelling and counting. Norm but what name did you have in mind?

Adding "er" makes 6 letters. That is if we are thinking of the same word that begins with a capital F.

That word just does not do justice to such a prick thought.

Perhaps a new O.P. is in order to find God's perfect name. Even Satan wont' do as even she is not that big of a prick.

Satan is depicted as female in the Vatican art but I am not sure if a woman can be called a prick. Being French, we do not have an equivalent term so I am not sure if that is a unisex term or not.

Dr. S. Help my grammar out here buddy.

Regards
DL

I wondered what you were on about until I saw that I has missed out a T.

Try a word beginning with C. (Hint: it is not clot.)[/quote]

We have to come up with something more, --- je ne sais pas, --- with umpf.

I want Christians to know I am pushing a grenade right up that _________'s anal orifice and pulling the pin. Verbally that is.

I need a name that suits that emotion.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:54 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:"]Which you're entitled to do, but when you come into a public forum and claim "evidence" without producing it then others are entitled to point this out, and apply Hitchen's razor.

I do not recall ever saying I had evidence to show anyone. I have what I need for evidence but with apotheosis, there is never evidence or proof to show others. It is a mental process and no one can have proof of those.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 04, 2015 8:58 pm

Greatest I am wrote:
Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:Given the absurdity of the Noah myth, and these logical paradoxes what kind of subjective, overly credulous believer would be able to avoid even a shred of doubt about this claim? Indeed how any halfway intelligent person doesn't die of embarrassment at the claims obvious absurdity is quite beyond me.

Not beyond me. We are all liars it seems.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:My point was about credulity rather than honesty, I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of believers per se, but their credulity in such obviously spurious myths as Noah does surprise me.

Have you noticed that, believer or not, the huge majority od us claim to be good and to venerate life yet the world is always at war.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:The vast majority of people are not directly involved in war for most of the time, and of course one may venerate life yet still either be involved involuntarily in a war, or even find themselves in a situation where one thought war was morally justifiable, the fight against Nazism for instance. If it were as simple as you seem to suggest then perhaps there would no wars, but I suspect it is not that simple.

We are either all liars or not walking our talk.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Or there are other options you haven't considered.

I was going to do an O.P. on this but figured having my fellow religionists hate me was enough and I did not want my non-believing friends to hate me as well.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:I'm not sure even the most vitriolic exchanges in these forums constitutes personal hatred to be honest, it certainly doesn't for me. I rarely even get annoyed, even when Polyglide is posting back to back ad hominem attacks against me. That kind of thing is more tedious than annoying. Try not to take things too personally, people are generally attacking claims and posts, not the poster who makes them.

Regards
DL

by Greatest I am Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:06 pm

I get attacked both at a policy level and personal. I am basically immune. If I did not have a thick skin, I would not be here.

I do not mind if the one insulting includes an argument to speak to but most do not have any and that is why the go for the personal.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sat Apr 04, 2015 9:25 pm

Greatest I am wrote: I do not recall ever saying I had evidence to show anyone. I have what I need for evidence but with apotheosis, there is never evidence or proof to show others. It is a mental process and no one can have proof of those.

Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:Then you can't claim that science has shown it to be true, as science only deals in evidence, nor can you really claim it as a fact if you have no evidence to support it. The reason I pointed out that you'd offered no evidence was that you made both claims, I have quoted them below.

Greatest I am wrote: wrote:That is why I have claimed apotheosis and speak of it as a fact.

Science has shown that there is what the ancients call a third or single eye

by Greatest I am Sat Apr 04, 2015 10:13 pm

Science says we have a higher mind. I gave you one link. Google more if you want them. I do not need to.

When I speak of apotheosis, it is a fact to me. If not to others then there is nothing I can do about that.

E=mc2 was a fact to Einstein long before the rest of the world believed it.

Regards
DL

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:34 am

Greatest I am wrote:Science says we have a higher mind. I gave you one link. Google more if you want them. I do not need to.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:That link was to an interview with ONE psychiatrist, if his opinion is representative of science's acknowledgement of your claim as true then please present some peer reviewed evidence for YOUR claim. We've been here before, and you've made a claim that is not evidenced and therefore not true I'm afraid, and you're now asking me to research it for you and that is not how it works.

When I speak of apotheosis, it is a fact to me. If not to others then there is nothing I can do about that.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:So if someone speaks of being Napoleon Bonaparte as being a fact to them that somehow validates it? A persons opinion can be subjective, as can their experiences which can be distorted and their senses deceived.

E=mc2 was a fact to Einstein long before the rest of the world believed it.
Dr Sheldon Cooper wrote:No it wasn't, Einstein was a scientist who understood the process that validates evidence, you are showing that you do not. However even if that 'were' true all it would show is that even the best scientists can be subjective, and that the process used to scrutinise their work is essential to remove subjectivity and validate their research, methods, evidence, and claims. Incidentally the world doesn't need to believe scientific evidence in the sense the religious believe, as religions are not evidenced. Now if your claim has been validated by that scientific process then peer reviewed evidence would have been published in worthy scientific journals. You've made claims that you can't do this for by saying "science has" when in fact science has done no such thing.

I watched the video and as well as striking me as being subjective opinion, at no point did it even mention "third eyes" or "unifying the brain and reaching our higher mind." He also makes some fairly broad assumptions about western societies that frankly sounded both subjective and spurious to me, for which he presented no real evidence. I also think his closing statement is extremely dubious about us creating a society that honours the rational mind, but neglects the intuitive mind, the vast majority of the worlds populations believe in superstitions that originated in the bronze age, and with no real evidence but based on faith. In what way does blind faith neglect the intuitive in favour of the rational?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:45 am

Greatest I am wrote:Science has shown that there is what the ancients call a third or single eye and much of Eastern theology and philosophy is based on it. All I preach is a method of unifying the brain and reaching our higher mind.

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

"Psychiatrist Iain McGilchrist describes the real differences between the left and right halves of the human brain. It's not simply "emotion on the right, reason on the left," but something far more complex and interesting."

That doesn't sound like what you've claimed at all. Nor does anything in that video clip come close to making those assertions.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Sun Apr 05, 2015 12:49 am

Greatest I am wrote: https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

Regards
DL

Some more about Iain McGilchrist's research here: NB please note the highlighted sections.

"The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World is a 2009 book written by Iain McGilchrist that deals with the specialist hemispheric functioning of the brain. The differing world views of the right and left brain (the "Master" and "emissary" in the title, respectively) have, according to the author, shaped Western culture since the time of the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, and the growing conflict between these views has implications for the way the modern world is changing. In part, McGilchrist's book, which is the product of twenty years of research, reviews the evidence of previous related research and theories, and based on this and cultural evidence, the author arrives at his own conclusions.
The Master and His Emissary received mostly favourable reviews upon its publication. Critics praised the book as being a landmark publication that could alter readers' perspective of how they viewed the world; A.C. Grayling, however, commented about the book that "the findings of brain science are nowhere near fine-grained enough yet to support the large psychological and cultural conclusions Iain McGilchrist draws""

by snowyflake Sun Apr 05, 2015 10:52 am

Greatest I am wrote:
snowyflake wrote:Are you kidding me, GIA? What have we been talking about but the immorality of religion. ALL religions. Even yours because it asks you put aside your reason to believe in third eyes and other bunk that is not founded in science. There is no proof of it. And to my mind it is immoral to tell people lies about things. What you believe is not the same thing as what is true or real.

I agree. That is why I have claimed apotheosis and speak of it as a fact. The fact that you do not want to believe it does not make my fact and experience a lie.

That is why I try hard never to lie and am quite willing to take any test that you would accept.

Science has shown that there is what the ancients call a third or single eye and much of Eastern theology and philosophy is based on it.

All I preach is a method of unifying the brain and reaching our higher mind.

https://www.ted.com/talks/iain_mcgilchrist_the_divided_brain

Regards
DL

No mention of third eyes or anything you preached. No mention of apotheosis which is a subjective, personal experience not founded in neuroscience or biology. McGilchrist is a psychiatrist and is talking about the brain and the hemisperes and how our experiences feed into intuition and reason. Obviously, your experiences with apotheosis cannot be considered real or reality since it's subjective. I don't doubt that you believe you've had an experience. I just doubt your interpretation of it. And science doesn't support your belief.

Sorry that's the truth.

by Greatest I am Sun Apr 05, 2015 2:55 pm

Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD wrote:
Greatest I am wrote:Science says we have a higher mind. I gave you one link. Google more if you want them. I do not need to.

When I speak of apotheosis, it is a fact to me. If not to others then there is nothing I can do about that.

E=mc2 was a fact to Einstein long before the rest of the world believed it.

"and you've made a claim that is not evidenced and therefore not true".

Thanks for the morning chuckle.

Regards
DL

by Sponsored content