Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, March 04, 2024

Peter Wehner: Jesus told us to love our enemies. And yet so many have embraced hostile politics in the name of Christianity.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

MFA:

So-called affective polarization--in which citizens are more motivated by who they oppose than who they support--has increased more dramatically in America than in any other democracy. "Hatred--specifically, hatred of the other party--increasingly defines our politics," Geoffrey Skelley and Holly Fuong have written at FiveThirtyEight. My colleague Ron Brownstein has argued that the nation is "confronting the greatest strain to its fundamental cohesion since the Civil War."

One might reasonably expect that Christians, including white evangelicals, would be a unifying, healing force in American society. After all, the apostle Paul wrote that Jesus came to tear down "the dividing wall of hostility" between groups that held profoundly different beliefs. "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God," Jesus said. In that same sermon, Jesus also said, "I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Even if those goals have always been unattainable, they were seen as aspirational.

Yet in the main, the white evangelical movement has for decades exacerbated our divisions, fueled hatreds and grievances, and turned fellow citizens into enemies rather than friends. This isn't true of all evangelicals, of course. The movement comprises tens of millions of Americans, many of them good and gracious people who seek to be peacemakers, including in the political realm. They are horrified by the political idolatry we're witnessing and the antipathy and rage that emanate from it. But it is fair to say that this movement that was at one time defined by its theological commitments is now largely defined by its partisan ones.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-03-04 03:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

It started, I would say, with the Prosperity Gospel; the complete antithesis of the teachings in the NT.

Oral Roberts to Kenneth Copeland and Jim and Tammy Baker to Jimmy Swaggart, and now Joel Olsten and a whole movement of others who now 'think' that not only should they love the money, they should also control the government and decide the morals of all it's citizens.

Here's a good article from a great source:

POLITICS

THESE CHRISTIANS THINK GOD NEEDS YOU RICH AND TO RULE THE WORLD

Wealthy megachurch televangelists are blending what's known as the "prosperity gospel" with nationalist politics.

www.texasobserver.org

"Some scholars see this highly politicized and rapidly growing nondenominational formation as the successor to conservative Evangelical Christianity that has played a significant role in Republican politics.

"Denominationalism is over," said Anthea Butler, chair of the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Religious Studies.

"And as a matter of fact, these people have subsumed evangelicalism. This is the wave of the future."

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-04 05:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Where Did Evangelicals Go Wrong?

There was great talk in Paris, and a few books in 1850s about the Church unifying with the socialist.

The Christian Socialist.

From my reading, it seems like abortion spilt them from the Liberal Progressives.

#3 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-03-04 05:37 PM | Reply

Sorry. Here's the link:

www.theatlantic.com

#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2024-03-04 06:05 PM | Reply

... Where Did Evangelicals Go Wrong? ...

My simple answer: when they left religion to get involved in politics.

#5 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-04 06:16 PM | Reply

They got drunk with power when the Reagan right pandered to them to vote against the Southern Baptist Sunday school teacher. It's one of the reasons I became a Democrat. The separation of church and state is as sacrosanct as the 1st and 2nd amendment. Roe v. Wade made them crazy.

#6 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2024-03-04 07:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Simple: They willfully neglect to follow the teachings Christ, the root word in Christianity, and easily grab something from the Old Testament or something Paul (who never knew Christ in His lifetime) said to justify themselves for doing the opposite. Any little thing they can grab onto ...

The textbook definition of hypocrites.

And they wonder why, in every poll, a larger and larger majority of Americans don't identify with a religion.

#7 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2024-03-04 07:30 PM | Reply

Where did they go wrong? They started believing obvious con-men (and women)

#8 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-03-04 07:33 PM | Reply

$

#9 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-03-04 07:44 PM | Reply

@#8 ... They started believing obvious con-men (and women) ...

Yeah, you might have been able to say that back in the day with the PTL Club.

The PTL Club
en.wikipedia.org

... The PTL Club, also known as The Jim and Tammy Show, was a Christian television program that was first hosted by evangelists Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, running from 1974 to 1989. The program was later known as PTL Today and as Heritage Today. During its final years, The PTL Club, which adopted a talk show format, was the flagship television program of the Bakkers' PTL Satellite Network.

History

Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker had been in the ministry with the Assemblies of God denomination since the early 1960s prior to joining Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), then based in Portsmouth, Virginia, in 1965. The Bakkers launched a children's show called Come On Over where the couple entertained viewers with songs, stories, and puppets. In 1966, Jim Bakker became the host of The 700 Club, a religious talk program that evolved from a telethon. The 700 Club would become the flagship program of CBN, which expanded from its original Hampton Roads station to include outlets in Atlanta and Dallas"Fort Worth by 1973.

Beginning in 1972, the Bakker-hosted 700 Club was launched in a dozen test markets, including then-independent station WRET-TV in Charlotte, North Carolina. However, the Bakkers departed CBN in 1973 and relocated to Southern California for a brief period, where they assisted Paul and Jan Crouch in launching Trinity Broadcasting Network before starting their own television ministry in North Carolina. When WRET-TV dropped The 700 Club in 1974, the station's then-owner Ted Turner approached Bakker about buying two hours a day on the outlet, which Bakker accepted. Bakker opted to call the show The PTL Club, and The 700 Club moved to then-ABC affiliate WCCB in Charlotte. ...

Due to his involvement in highly publicized financial and sexual scandals, Jim Bakker resigned on March 19, 1987. He turned all ministry assets over to Lynchburg, Virginia"based pastor and broadcaster Jerry Falwell, who became CEO of the parent organization, Heritage Village Church and Missionary Fellowship, Inc. and assumed control of Heritage USA, the cable network, and of its flagship program. Falwell's involvement was deemed newsworthy,[by whom?] as the PTL ministries were a part of the Assemblies of God denomination and Falwell was a Southern Baptist. Ministry supporters questioned Falwell's intentions and attributed his interest solely to maintaining control of the lucrative cable-television empire owned by PTL to broadcast his own ministry programming.

One commentator noted that "Bakker arranged for Falwell to take over PTL in March in an effort to avoid what he called a 'hostile takeover' of the television ministry by people threatening to expose a sexual encounter he admitted to having seven years earlier with church secretary Jessica Hahn."[3] According to Hahn, on the afternoon of December 6, 1980, when she was a 21-year-old church secretary, Bakker and another preacher, John Wesley Fletcher drugged and raped her for "about 15 minutes". Hahn stated she overheard Bakker say afterward to another PTL staffer, "Did you get her too?"[4]

A federal grand jury indicted Bakker for diverting millions of dollars of church funds to personal use. Much of the nation[citation needed] watched the court case to see the outcome of the $165 million in donations.[5][6] ...


(... and don't get me started on Mr Falwell. ...)



#10 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-04 07:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They mixed politics with religion. A no no in the Bible.

#11 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2024-03-04 07:45 PM | Reply

Lamp,

Don't get me started on Jerry Falwell.

Falwell and Reagan made a deal with the devil.

That doesn't mean Christianity is fake.

Just mixing politics and religion neither function as intended.

#12 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-03-04 08:33 PM | Reply

Matthew 7:15

Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits."

I think we pretty well know what sort of fruits Jerry Falwell created.

Jerry Falwell Jr.

I read the pool boys account. Jr would sit in the bedroom and watch his wife in bed with the pool boy. This went on for quite some time and the pool boy ended up becoming pretty involved in their family until things blew up.

#13 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-03-04 08:42 PM | Reply

And besides, Trump is Antichrist45.

antichrist45.com

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-04 08:43 PM | Reply

It really started, in modern times, with the end of legal segregation. Specifically when federal DoE dollars were denied to Evangelical segregation academies. That was really the motivating event that turned American Evangelicals from apolitical "in the world but not of it" types into a political block of the most racist, regressive, and unreconstructed variety.

#15 | Posted by s1l3ntc0y0t3 at 2024-03-04 11:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They mixed politics with religion. A no no in the Bible.

#11 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

Which Bible do you have? It would be pretty thin without the Gospels and all the historical Old Testament books.

#16 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2024-03-04 11:35 PM | Reply

@#12 ... That doesn't mean Christianity is fake. ...

While I may have expressed my opinions of the experiences with the religious indoctrination I experienced when I was a kid, I never said that Christianity is fake.

If you want to know what I think of Christianity, just ask, instead of ascribing an opinion to me that I had not expressed.

However, the use of religion (by con-men?) to further political causes, well, that's where I may have an issue.


#17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-04 11:45 PM | Reply

@#12 ... Falwell and Reagan made a deal with the devil. ...

In my opinion...

Mr Falwell was the one who made the deal with the devil.

fmr Pres Reagan, seeing an "in" decided to align with Mr Falwell to gain the South.

And the South happily went along with the ruse.

#18 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-04 11:48 PM | Reply

And that led us to Kristin Kobes Du Mez. She's been thinking about, researching and writing about these issues for years in her work as a professor of history and gender studies at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Mich. She also identifies as an evangelical Christian. She says that it wasn't until the late 1970s that abortion became a mobilizing force for the religious right. Before that, she told us there was actually a diversity of opinion about abortion in evangelical spaces.
www.npr.org

#19 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-03-04 11:52 PM | Reply

Think Corky hit a home run right off the bat - prosperity gospel. The disgusting bastardiziation of Calvinism and con men, claiming God will reward the righteous with earthly riches, and also inferring then that the rich must somehow be righteous. Blithely passing by the whole "you cannot worship both God and mammon" line, while simultaneously leading large swathes of evangelicals to idolize those who are the very antithesis of Christianity.

On a side note, a huge amount of what fed into my youthful not just atheism, but outright anti-theism. I remember working night shifts in the hospital while taking classes in the morning, and patients having these con men on their tv's, bilking the poorest and least educated out of their "seed money" to keep their mansions going. Nothing has ever quite disgusted me so much, or driven that level of hatred of religion in me as that. I'm a little more open to spirituality these days, and just think somebody needs to get ahold of Jesus and a whip again. But I digress.

It's filled evangelism with people who vote directly against their best interests. Plays right into the meme of republicans thinking of themselves as merely temporarily embarrassed millionaires. And feeds a bigoted line of thinking that the less fortunate must be somehow unrighteous, in line with its Calvinistic roots, which has utterly twisted the charity that was at the heart of the teachings of Jesus, and left supposed Christians idolizing the least "godly."

There are good things that have come out of religion. This - not one of them. Possibly its most disgusting perversion, even.

#20 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2024-03-05 02:48 AM | Reply

They're a --------- cult

#21 | Posted by hamburglar at 2024-03-05 06:26 AM | Reply

Ham,

"Think Corky hit a home run right off the bat - prosperity gospel."

This is not something new.

One thing that led to the Reformation started by Martin Luther were the Catholic priests selling "indulgences".

Money has been used to corrupt Christianity since the very beginning.

Sure didn't start with Falwell.

#22 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-03-05 06:42 AM | Reply

Lamp,

"If you want to know what I think of Christianity, just ask, instead of ascribing an opinion to me that I had not expressed."

Sorry how I wrote it.

I wasn't intending to imply you said that.

It was meant to be for anyone who might come to that conclusion.

#23 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-03-05 08:23 AM | Reply

When did they go wrong? What does that even mean?

The word "evangelical" means "obnoxious jerk who harasses people about their ridiculous religion".

It's right there in the word. They ARE wrong, by the very definition of the word.

#24 | Posted by DarkVader at 2024-03-05 10:11 AM | Reply

#15

Has an excellent point, too; ending segregation introduced a lot of churches to the political arena.

Where they had long been warned they do not belong.

In the mid fifties there were still two water drinking fountains in many stores and public places that had signs above them; one said Black or Colored, and the other White.

Which changed in the 60's with The Great Society Programs, as LBJ carried out JFK's plans after he was assassinated. Not everyone in the South was unhappy when he was.

#25 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-05 10:13 AM | Reply

Evangelicals went wrong when they started believing in a cosmic Jewish zombie who is his own father and whose flesh you have to eat and blood you have to drink to clean a stain off a ghost that lives in your body which was put there because some lady ate a piece of magic fruit after listening to a talking snake in a super neat garden.

#26 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-03-05 10:23 AM | Reply

Yeah, it prolly makes more sense that a fine-tuned universe magically created itself out of nothing... when any mathematician will tell you that x cannot create x.

www.youtube.com

#27 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-05 10:52 AM | Reply

Makes way more sense to me, to be honest.

#28 | Posted by YAV at 2024-03-05 11:02 AM | Reply

#26 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2024-03-05 10:23 AM | FLAG:

Ahh, yes, I too remember the days before I learned to shave my neck.

#29 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2024-03-05 11:03 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Religion should be private. Nonsense should stay at home. Don't subject fellow people to dumb ideas.

#30 | Posted by Brennnn at 2024-03-05 01:22 PM | Reply

Bren,

"Religion should be private."

Why should it be?

#31 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2024-03-05 01:39 PM | Reply

Once again, it was the Right that destroyed this branch of
Christianity...

The Right destroys everything, and replaces it with hate,
anger, lies, deception, evil...

#32 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-03-05 02:08 PM | Reply

Religion should be private. Nonsense should stay at home. Don't subject fellow people to dumb ideas.
#30 | POSTED BY BRENNNN

You don't wash your hands? Clean your feet?

#33 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-03-05 02:10 PM | Reply

#30 | POSTED BY BRENNNN AT 2024-03-05 01:22 PM |

Religion I have found is simply what people make of it. This coming from a once hardcore anti-theist. A position l now believe to be the Dunning-Kruger state of spirituality.

One can use religion to justify beating people to death with rocks for being gay or not listening to their parents. Or, one can use it inform and educate their morality - it's not necessary, there are certainly many moral atheists and agnostics - but the problem, particularly after the new atheism movement, becomes one of throwing the baby out with the bath water. Centuries to millennia of philosophy and thought, or of simply seeing the historical development of modern morality and applying that to the purpose of living a more fulfilling life. It only depends on the discernment of the person studying it.

Plus, it gives a great many people comfort or strength when they feel they lack their own. Is it real? Who cares. If someone gives you a sugar pill and it takes your pain away, will you be angry at the placebo effect?

And last - why I referred to it as the Dunning-Kruger state of spirituality - physics was always my first love in all subjects. And when I knew a little, that grounded me in materialism. Knowing much more now - one doesn't even have to get into woo to realize we don't understand base reality at even the most granular level. We don't know if we're moving through 6 other dimensions rolled up into little Calabi-Yau manifolds too tiny to possibly ever detect, or if we're on a brane right next to another with 5 times the matter in ours, that we can only detect by its gravity. We can't even rule out whether our universe is real or just a simulation. How the heck do we know among all that there isn't a greater intelligence or creative force? Not that extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence - but that gets stretched to absurdity when you'd have to have extraordinary evidence just to make the extraordinary claim one understands the nature of just the reality we live in.

So long as they aren't pushing it, or trying to force others to live by it (and admittedly, plenty do) what harm if people try to share what helps them?

#34 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2024-03-05 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You don't wash your hands? Clean your feet?

#33 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT

What strange questions.

Do you make a show of cleaning your feet and hands, just for religious purposes?

#35 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2024-03-05 02:43 PM | Reply

What strange questions.
#35 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT

Are they?

Religion, despite its myths, are a codification for both moral and practical living.

Washing hands before a meal didn't come about by some "scientific" method, but learned and transferred in to religious practice.

Same with many of the disciplined activities/hygiene you partake in on a daily basis.

These were all passed down via religious practice, without this you wouldn't probably exist today.

Do you make a show of cleaning your feet and hands, just for religious purposes?

You confuse the question with the bigger problem, this is what literalist do, which you seem to be good at.

Here's a question from The Brothers Karamazov:

If you lose your sense of immortality (no religion) what keeps you from committing immoral behavior?
What over time, will keep society from becoming completely immoral?
Evil doing is necessary and most intelligent solution for every godless person. If no belief in immortality, is there anything to be virtuous about?

Zero takes a snapshot and its a good one, but his argument is missing the salient point, that religions/man are not stuck in time, but moving either towards chaos or order. Relgion IMO is a move towards order, as it codifies human experience and creates a common ground for all men.

This to me seems logical and correct, but I have a cognitive dissonance in that I don't believe in god, or religion.

#36 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-03-05 03:20 PM | Reply

Corky- creation and the big bang are basically equal in the how the fk contest but after the first couple of nanoseconds the rest of the big bang universe makes sense.
None of creation does.
Actually none of the Numero creation myths do.
Assuming you are a Christian, I as an atheist disbelieve in just one more God than you

#37 | Posted by northguy3 at 2024-03-05 03:40 PM | Reply

If you lose your sense of immortality (no religion) what keeps you from committing immoral behavior?
What over time, will keep society from becoming completely immoral?
Evil doing is necessary and most intelligent solution for every godless person. If no belief in immortality, is there anything to be virtuous about?
#36 | POSTED BY ONEIRONAUT AT 2024-03-05 03:20 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

From a naturalistic perspective, there is a perfectly good answer for this: humanity has evolved to be a social animal. Not individuals, but whole groups evolved more successfully if they were cooperative. A bit of dopamine boost for doing a good deed for another member of the tribe assures mutual survival. The brain being naturally wired for this makes living in a mutually beneficial and cooperative environment more fulfilling - what evolved into morality. In contrast, game theory predicts a certain amount of self-interest to be beneficial to an individual's capacity to procreate, but society can only handle a small percentage of such individuals before reaching a critical instability. Hence, there's a small percentage of socio/psychopathy inherent to the species - who on the high functioning end, sometimes end up being effective leaders, businessmen, etc, due to their inherent decisiveness and low level of risk aversion.

So most people will want to be moral, regardless of personal mortality. It leads to greater fulfillment, a "life better lived." The immortality not of the individual, but of their genes.

Regardless, it does not affect the god proposal. Evolved that way? Created that way? Guided in evolution that way? Most effective in the simulation that way? Meaningless. We still can't know.

But it does take just as much faith to be an atheist as a believer. It's just faith in your knowledge being all-encompassing of reality. Unfortunately, the more one learns, the less they find they know.

#38 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2024-03-05 03:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If you lose your sense of immortality (no religion) what keeps you from committing immoral behavior?

I have this retread plonked, but i wonder if there's any data on levels of "immoral behavior" among religious and areligious folks. All the priests who cant stop molesting little boys would be surprised to hear that belief in God gives you moral superpowers.

#39 | Posted by JOE at 2024-03-05 03:54 PM | Reply

"[D]ata from the Federal Bureau of Prisons suggest that atheists are far less likely to commit crimes than religious people, and globally the least religious countries have the lowest crime rates."
today.uconn.edu

Oh.

#40 | Posted by JOE at 2024-03-05 03:56 PM | Reply

#40 | POSTED BY JOE AT 2024-03-05 03:56 PM | FLAG:

To play Devil's, er, God's advocate lol:
Luke 5:32
New International Version
I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Maybe that's why. Though in context, it was said to the self-righteous, not so much as the actually righteous.

#41 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2024-03-05 04:02 PM | Reply

"If you lose your sense of immortality (no religion) what keeps you from committing immoral behavior?
What over time, will keep society from becoming completely immoral?"

Laws. Watch a Hitchens debate on youtube. Also, a child is born with morality. You don't need a spiritual north korea to do the right thing.

#42 | Posted by Brennnn at 2024-03-05 04:26 PM | Reply

#38

Except for the very last part, I would agree with most of your comment.

Atheism requires no faith at all. Belief and faith are synonymous. Some things I can "believe", as there is at least some empirical evidence. Knowledge requires proof. As I have no proof, or evidence, or even a feeling that there is a deity, I have no faith in that idea.

#43 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2024-03-05 04:57 PM | Reply

Meanwhile, back at the Ranch, er, I mean, The Universe.... X still cannot create X.

www.youtube.com

short

More

www.youtube.com

15 min

ABOUT PROFESSOR JOHN LENNOX:
Professor of Mathematics & Philosophy at Oxford.

ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY:
The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 189 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

#44 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-05 05:09 PM | Reply

- Belief and faith are synonymous.

Faith as a verb is an action word. My old Stanford PhD used to say that the ABCs of Faith are:

Action, based upon Belief, sustained by Confidence.

You may not have much in the way of empirical evidence that your significant others love you.

But you act as if you do because you believe that they love you, and you have faith in them and their love for you, which is sustained by their actions and their apparent faith in your love for them.

#45 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-05 05:16 PM | Reply

I have simply embraced agnostic fundamentalism.

I don't know and you can't make me.

#46 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2024-03-05 05:22 PM | Reply

The idea that morality requires religion is ludicrous on it's face.

JC spent much of his time bashing the religious hypocrites of his time, who, as it turns out, still haven't changed much at all, except that they may have gotten worse.

#47 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-05 05:22 PM | Reply

#46

Thanks! I needed that smile.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-05 05:24 PM | Reply

"Where Did Evangelicals Go Wrong?"

Where did they go right?

These are the people who created the Southern Baptists because they said The Bible supports enslaving Blacks.

They should have been hunted and murdered like Hamas pawns, not living in luxury like Hamas leaders.

#49 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-05 05:24 PM | Reply

- the Southern Baptists

Were a minority reaction to the very much Christian-based Abolitionist Movement in the US and in the UK.

Much like Evangelicals rebelled against the Social Gospel.

And apparently have decided that they need to run the government to get their point across.

#50 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-05 05:29 PM | Reply

That's their strength.

Southern Baptist is a white Nativist movement

It's exactly what C.S. Lewis said it is.

They're already here, and have been pulling the strings of the GOP since Reagan. It's a generational takeover.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-05 05:31 PM | Reply

- decided that they need to run the government to get their point across.

As did Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

#52 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-05 05:32 PM | Reply

- It's a generational takeover.

It is... Reaganites, Tea Partiers, Trumpers.

But also the movement has been financed by Big Money from the beginning, as the Proletariat knows a good bet to Divide and Conquer when they see it.

I remember seeing Tea Party guys in Naples pull up to street corner protests in their Porsches wearing their Rolexes (Roli?) and carrying Don't Tax Me! signs.

#53 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-05 05:38 PM | Reply

The idea that morality requires religion is ludicrous on it's face.

This isn't what Ivan was articulating.

Religion at its base takes the human denial of death to imagine immortality as a type of heaven or hell.

What Ivan was saying is that the high moral standards require the idea of immortality. You tie it with religion, that's because you're missing his diatribe to defend your belief system.

For example: In the aggregate during a War and after it, the societies that participated in it see a drop in morals and standards.

WAR and PANDEMICs have a way of bringing immortality to the consciousness of the individual, and in the aggregate lead to less moral behavior. As far as I can tell these events cause a "moral injury" to individuals at different levels.

This is his theory, no one here seems to have presented evidence otherwise. Though there are studies in the short term which indicate otherwise, I haven't seen a long term study.

Another tact I have heard on the topic was take pre-religious man, no morals, just innate sense of right and wrong, but still a low trust society. With the addition of religion and the "invisible man" watching you, moral behavior caught on. The "invisible man" with the along immortality is religion.

Why would you be a highly moral person if there is no judgement in the end? Or no heaven?

Some cultural psychologist Richard Shweder suggested conceptualizing morality as a triad composed of distinctive ethics of autonomy, community, and divinity.

#54 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-03-05 05:51 PM | Reply

So most people will want to be moral, regardless of personal mortality. It leads to greater fulfillment, a "life better lived." The immortality not of the individual, but of their genes.
- Zero

People are moral until it comes to their hierarchies needs being met. The morality you speak of and naturalism is true. But more defined. Man is a social creature with priorities within social behovior, (children,kin,community ... ). There is a hierarchy of moral behavoir, and the crossing moral bounds..

For instance if morals were a "constant" there wouldn't be a disagreement among politicians on social issues. Why do right leaning people believe one thing and left leaning people believe another, the mores aren't as defined as you imply.

Morals that aren't consistent across a society creates distrust within that society. Hence the L&R tearing the country apart.

While people clamor for diversity, diversity in morals creates a huge amount of distrust within the society.

#55 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-03-05 06:01 PM | Reply

- Why would you be a highly moral person if there is no judgement in the end? Or no heaven?

That's like saying why is there the sun, when it's there for everyone to see.

Highly moral non-religious people are all around for those who have the eyes to see.

As are highly immoral religious people, aka the subject of the thread.

#56 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-05 06:01 PM | Reply

Regardless, it does not affect the god proposal. Evolved that way? Created that way? Guided in evolution that way? Most effective in the simulation that way? Meaningless. We still can't know.
- Zero

Don't disagree, but its not relevant to its utility in a society to have a consistent moral code, and immortality (at least this is what Dostoevsky was getting at). This package is sort of loosely called "religion". The "Religion" is the baseline for the morality.

Dostoevsky goes into a Church within a State or a State within a Church and its an interesting discussion as well. With is focus on ecclesiastical Courts and their utility in crime, punishment and rehabilitation.

#57 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-03-05 06:08 PM | Reply

Highly moral non-religious people are all around for those who have the eyes to see.

As are highly immoral religious people, aka the subject of the thread.
#56 | POSTED BY CORKY

As I have stated before. The idea of immortality exists without regards to being religious. BUT religion takes advantage of this concept to make people adhere to their doctrine.

Again just because someone is immoral and religious doesn't mean they believe in immortality or not.

You aren't seeming to grasp the concept yet.

#58 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-03-05 06:12 PM | Reply

Man, this is what I missed about this place. Other threads calling poster's intelligence, species, sexual orientation (also including species,) std's, and how best they could unalive themselves in question, and then a discussion like this.

Posted a couple times on Flipboard recently and decided the dead internet theory was true - or worse, it would be better if it was lol.

Also, great quote in the YouTube comments on that video Corky.

"A little science distances you from God, but a lot of science brings you nearer to him"
Louis Pasteur

Don't know how I never heard that before. Somewhat concerned I found it in YouTube comments.

#59 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2024-03-05 06:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Perhaps a little science would help Dostoevsky in his dilemma...

neurosciencenews.com

#60 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-05 06:14 PM | Reply

Fundamentally humans deny their immortality, in our "natural" state. Religion takes this and extends it to heaven and hell.

The proposition is that when immortality is brought to consciousness, Moral behavior breaks down and fails.

Anytime you've dealt with near death experience (driving, being robbed etc), your morality will change at least for a short while because you see you are mortal. Eventually you go back to behaving as if you are immortal.

#61 | Posted by oneironaut at 2024-03-05 06:17 PM | Reply

#59

Pasteur was one of the scientists that Prof Lennox mentions when he talks about those scientists who discovered much of the basics that we know about the universe; that they were mostly people who were not at all surprised to be consistently discovering and describing Laws of Nature... because most of then already believed in a Law Giver and an orderly universe.

Newton, for instance, wrote many times as much about religion as he ever did science, and he was one of it's founders and law writers.

#62 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-05 06:22 PM | Reply

"Why would you be a highly moral person if there is no judgement in the end? Or no heaven?"

Christian judgment doesn't hinge on morals. It's whether or not you have accepted Jesus.

But to address your question:
Why would you not be a highly moral person if there is no judgment in the end, and the only thing that will be judged by history is the impact of your life, moral or otherwise?

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-05 06:29 PM | Reply

"Newton, for instance, wrote many times as much about religion as he ever did science,"

He also tried to turn lead into gold.

Does that manner of Greed seem Christian? Does Ferdiand and Isabella's lust for New World Gold strike you as Christian?

It's around the time of Newton, or perhaps Columbus, or maybe even earlier, that our technologically driven accumulation of wealth became so amazingly successful that it essentially made the Christians and their vows of poverty an offer they couldn't refuse.

If Christianity didn't find a way to endorse the love of money and the power structure which provides for the poor to be exploited by the rich, Christianity would be completely irrelevant and probably dead today.

#64 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-05 06:34 PM | Reply

Hmmm... well, Newton was nearly 2000 years after, so, not so much.

And mistaking the 14 percent of the US population that are Evangelicals for all of Christianity, might be akin to mistaking Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot for all of modern atheism.

#65 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-05 07:10 PM | Reply

#10 | Posted by LampLighter

I had 3 aunts who fell into all that hook, line and sinker. The Bakers, Falwell, ALL that - sending them money like it had no end. Well 2 really, the 3rd was dragged along. 2 Widows and a divorcee. They fell in after their cousin did. (She was always nice but fruity). When they "found God" (in their late 50s/60s) and after a few visits my dad very sternly told them "We love you, you are welcome in our home any time, but do not ever come back if you are going to push your religion on us or want to talk about it. This nonsense is not Christianity. They are crooks who are preying on you." They didn't bring it up in our home again. Their local church is totally a Talibaptist one.

#66 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2024-03-05 07:43 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

And yet so many have embraced hostile politics

#67 | Posted by libs_of_dr at 2024-03-05 08:39 PM | Reply

you get it or you don't

#68 | Posted by libs_of_dr at 2024-03-05 08:40 PM | Reply

"And mistaking the 14 percent of the US population that are Evangelicals for all of Christianity"

^
I'm not mistaken when I say the only Evangelicals ruining the country with their politics are the MAGA Christian Republicans.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-05 09:09 PM | Reply

There is no sane version of Christianity that is matching forces with them. There is no sane version of Christianity that is confronting them head on with Scripture. Or if there is, it's a tiny weak impotent force that isn't having much success.

I'd love to be wrong about that.

Hopefully they will find some backbone and vote against fascism with the same fervor the Evangelicals worship Trump.

#70 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-05 09:11 PM | Reply

But so you consider hostile politics exclusive to your anti's?

#71 | Posted by libs_of_dr at 2024-03-05 09:20 PM | Reply

Saying that you need a religion to be moral is to admit you aren't moral but need the threat of damnation to prevent you from commiting crimes.

#72 | Posted by northguy3 at 2024-03-05 10:06 PM | Reply

#72 Saying you need religion to be moral is just a step removed from saying you need this specific religion to be moral and everyone else is an Abomination that rightfully must be destroyed.

It was a Christian who came up with:
Kill 'em all, let G-d sort them out.

So the soldiers simply killed everyone.
And it was moral to do so.

#73 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-05 10:13 PM | Reply

TV Evangelists changed Chrisrianity from a religion based on Chris's words to a celebration of wealth and showmanship!. I simply refuse to have any of these hypocrits on my TV screen. On Sunday mornings Joel.Osteen comes on and the. Hannel is immediarely changed. I laughed my ass off.when the collection got stolen during the service. No one will ever convince me he isn't really an actor who is just laughable!

#74 | Posted by danni at 2024-03-05 10:55 PM | Reply

"If you lose your sense of immortality (no religion) what keeps you from committing immoral behavior?
What over time, will keep society from becoming completely immoral?
Evil doing is necessary and most intelligent solution for every godless person. If no belief in immortality, is there anything to be virtuous about?"

People making these sorts of arguments are telling on themselves. Essentially evil bastards on a leash who could break free any time. Stear clear.

#75 | Posted by dibblda at 2024-03-05 11:10 PM | Reply

70.

I'm happy to say you are wrong (and partially right).

Many of my clients are denominational presses or university presses that print many theological books as well. They are unabashedly of the Christian left, including Protestant and Catholic presses, and have fed my family for years.

All are publishers that have been around a long time. Unfortunately such presses don't have a lot of marketing money to spread. And those presses, as well as for the Big 5 publishers, will not hesitate to tell a prospective author that the merit of their book has less to do with anything than what kind of platform the author brings -- meaning how many people are going to buy the book just based on who the author is.

A lot of Christian left authors don't have much of a platform, not like some of these Evangelical authors, or the New Atheists. The problem I have with them stems from what I've read, in which all religions are painted as Fundamentalists, and I think fundamentalism is at the root of more problems than evangelicalism. But most religious movements are far from fundamentalism. Christianity is growing fast in Africa and Asia, and the next generations of these denominations is dealing with the fact that most people in their flock don't look like them -- and have millennia of polytheism that won't go away. They won't be the brainwashed children of fundies that the US seems primed to produce.

Christianity is a lower-case evangelical religion. Go and spread the gospel to all nations, and all that. It's baked in. Jews, by contrast, do not proselytize.

#76 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2024-03-05 11:12 PM | Reply

* are dealing.

#77 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2024-03-05 11:14 PM | Reply

#76 Decent people who are also religious leaders did a commendable job standing up to the Unite The Right armed goons parading around Charlottesville back in 2017.

But they need to be doing that all day, every day.

Where's the not-fascist version of 700 Club? Like the Right-Wing version of The Daily Show, it simply doesn't exist.

"A lot of Christian left authors don't have much of a platform, not like some of these Evangelical authors, or the New Atheists."

Yeah that's the problem as I see it.

There's no MONEY in actually living like Christ.

Without a huge propaganda organization like the Catholic Church promoting her, nobody would know the name Mother Theresa. This is of course setting aside my opinion that telling the poor that it's noble to suffer is a moral crime on par with the amount of wealth the Catholic Church has extracted from this world and hasn't deployed to end said suffering. But I think you get my point.

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 12:36 AM | Reply

"telling the poor that it's noble to suffer is a moral crime on par with the amount of wealth the Catholic Church has extracted from this world and hasn't deployed to end said suffering."

Now THAT's a man who understands an equation!

Well done, sir.

#79 | Posted by Danforth at 2024-03-06 02:58 AM | Reply

Well, except that the Catholic Church hasn't treated the poor that way since Vatican II, at least. And you might want to check out the role of Catholics in Latin America in the 70s and 80s, not to mention liberation theology. Both are easy examples of that church doing exactly what people wish the church would do.

I hesitate to explain this each time. I don't want to appear as a shill for religion itself or a denomination. I was born an atheist and held to that closely for forty years.

Now I can say that if I have any idea of "God," it's got nothing to do with the Old or New Testament concepts of it. And never has.

#80 | Posted by Dbt2 at 2024-03-06 05:37 AM | Reply

"And you might want to check out the role of Catholics in Latin America in the 70s and 80s, not to mention liberation theology."

I'm aware of Liberation Theology.

Liberation Theology got shut down by The Vatican once the actual politics of it started taking root because it was "too Communist."

#81 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 11:11 AM | Reply

"Well, except that the Catholic Church hasn't treated the poor that way since Vatican II, at least."

You must be reading different newspapers than the ones I get.

Look how The Vatican has treated child sex abuse victims in Baltimore.

It is not an organization that helps the needy.

#82 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 11:22 AM | Reply

Evangelicals went wrong when they started believing in a cosmic Jewish zombie who is his own father and whose flesh you have to eat and blood you have to drink to clean a stain off a ghost that lives in your body which was put there because some lady ate a piece of magic fruit after listening to a talking snake in a super neat garden.
#26 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT
Ahh, yes, I too remember the days before I learned to shave my neck.
#29 | POSTED BY ZEROPOINTNRG

Which part is wrong?

Do you also believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus? I'm curious.

#83 | Posted by Sycophant at 2024-03-06 11:56 AM | Reply

shorts

www.youtube.com

www.youtube.com

www.youtube.com

more for your viewing pleasure

www.youtube.com

#84 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-06 12:13 PM | Reply

Who says evangelicals are "wrong"?

If Trumpy wins then they will be "right" (theoretically).

Isn't that how it works?

#85 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-03-06 12:56 PM | Reply

If he wins, they will be held responsible for outcomes rather than merely being the sanctimonious whiners and plotters they are currently.

#86 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-06 01:33 PM | Reply

#83 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT AT 2024-03-06 11:56 AM | FLAG:

I personally don't necessarily believe any of it - in a literal sense. I don't even know many Christians that do, although having been raised by a Pentecostal literalist, I certainly once did. I honestly don't even know how many times the whole Bible, front to back, was read to me or by me.

Of course, that, along with the hypocrisy of so much of the religious right and the prosperity gospel types were why I jumped on the New Atheism bandwagon hard when I was younger - teens to mid 20's at least.

It was cringey.

Were they wrong about many of the evils done in the name of religion? No. But Stalin and Mao proved quite well one doesn't need religion to commit great evil, that rather any belief system can be perverted into something horrible.

And self-righteousness? The whole being a moral busybody all up in everyone's business and more concerned with signaling your own virtue by tearing down others rather than truly being virtuous? Well, I'm an independent these days politically, and can easily see where the supposedly rational left can be every bit the Puritanical killjoys the religious right can be. There are times the Tic Toc cancel culture culture club absolutely leave me shaking my head laughing that we've gone from little blue haired church ladies seeing Satan everywhere and trying to censor any art, music, or political views they think are evil right to not so little blue haired college students seeing racism and misogyny everywhere and trying to censor any art, music, or political views they think are evil. So you don't need religion to be annoying.

But, as Oneironaut and I both pointed out in various ways, religion need not dictate, but can inform culture, morals and social cohesion. It can give provide comfort and thousands of years of philosophy that would truly be a waste to throw out just because one doesn't see a god when looking out the window. And as I pointed out - and can go much deeper into if one wants - there is a hubris and ignorance to believing one has a monopoly on reality. What we perceive, both directly and indirectly through scientific instruments is the tiniest fraction of reality. What is dark matter? where is dark matter? Explain particle-wave duality and how the macro world coheres out of the quantum, and Bell's Theorem. And tell me which theory on that is correct. Are we all encoded in holograms on the event horizon of an expanding universe or 4-D black hole in another universe? Is our universe infinite, or one of many in an infinity of universes? Either way, what beings could evolve out of actual infinity? We do not even understand our own reality. We cannot even perceive it. There's no biological advantage to it. As I mentioned before, e we can't even prove if we're part of a simulation or not.

So while I can't say one religion in particular is correct, how can I say there isn't a higher dimension or a vastly more evolved being out there, so beyond us as to essentially be a God? There's no proof - but there's an awful lot of proof of just how tiny and ignorant we truly are.

And it does little good to mock the religious. Neither you nor they will change your minds. But it does make one look like an ass, and it achieves more to find what unites us than divides us. And most probably take most of your examples as allegory.

#87 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2024-03-06 01:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"So while I can't say one religion in particular is correct, how can I say there isn't a higher dimension or a vastly more evolved being out there, so beyond us as to essentially be a God?"

^
That's called God Of The Gaps. And that notion cannot withstand the scrutiny of Russell's Teapot.

Asserting the undetectable existence of a supernatural force doesn't tell us anything about the world we didn't already know. Since it's undetectable, that means it has no impact on anything, by definition of what it means for something to be undetectable.

It tells us something about the people who do or do not make those claims, it tells us something about human nature, but it has no bearing beyond that. It's navel gazing. In the example of organized religion, it's navel gazing "at scale."

It's a concept that persists because it has a lot of momentum and inertia behind it, like the base ten number system and the seven day week.

#88 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 01:52 PM | Reply

Many posters here have already nailed it on the head. The intersection of Evangelical Christianity and the GOP was a financial bonanza for both and the tragic ideological collapse of what each of them separately used to stand for. And yet some people call it the "genius" of the likes of Ronald Reagan, Jerry Falwell and Lee Atwater.

#89 | Posted by moder8 at 2024-03-06 02:00 PM | Reply

If he wins, they will be held responsible for outcomes rather than merely being the sanctimonious whiners and plotters they are currently.

#86 | POSTED BY CORKY

Only after Trump is out of power. Like now.

If he is in power he will protect them until the day of reckoning when all their hateful plans start to backfire and fall part (like now) and the perps are held accountable in a court of law.

Like now.

#90 | Posted by donnerboy at 2024-03-06 02:08 PM | Reply

#88 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2024-03-06 01:52 PM | FLAG:

I was going to comment on that, but was already so long-winded I was tired of hearing myself type lol.

I don't mean to "God of the gaps" it - but the point of the really long brushing past of numerous physics issues - Bell's Theorem, the one the proved reality is non-local being the one that really gets me - was to say it's not just a simple "gap." This isn't "we know gravity is there, but not how it works, so let's just say God is holding everything together." This is "we literally don't understand base reality and can't even perceive most of it." String theory posits everything from multiple dimensions rolled up within our own too tiny for us to probe with a particle accelerator from here to the moon. And it also posits branes on which could literally sit entire other realities overlapping our own. Some serious scientists actually speculate on the whole simulation hypothesis - and what, if anything, is that, but God with a computer and extra steps? 4/5ths of the mass in our universe is invisible. These aren't "gaps". These are chasms you could actually fit a whole god into, and rather than simply using the supernatural to explain something natural we know exists, the problem is at the very bottom floor of reality - we don't even know reality exists as we perceive it. And that's while trying desperately to avoid any of the woo.

So again, I'm not espousing any one religion, so much as pointing out the arrogance of claiming we know what "can't be." Fundamentally - we don't know anything.

#91 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2024-03-06 02:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Russell's Teapot.

Debunked on many levels...

Philosopher Brian Garvey argues that the teapot analogy fails with regard to religion because, with the teapot, the believer and non-believer are simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of an atheist and a theist.[3]

Garvey argues that it is not a matter of the theist propounding existence of a thing and the atheist simply denying it " each is asserting an alternative explanation of why the cosmos exists and is the way it is:

"the atheist is not just denying an existence that the theist affirms " the atheist is in addition committed to the view that the universe is not the way it is because of God. It is either the way it is because of something other than God, or there is no reason it is the way it is."[3]

Philosopher Peter van Inwagen argues that while Russell's teapot is a fine piece of rhetoric, its logical argument form is less than clear, and attempting to make it clear reveals that the Teapot Argument is very far from cogent.[8]

Another philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, states that a falsehood lies at the heart of Russell's argument. Russell's argument assumes that there is no evidence against the teapot, but Plantinga disagrees:

en.wikipedia.org

philarchive.org

www.theatlantic.com

https://medium.com/@jrcii/debunking-russells-teapot-aa06417c0137

#92 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-06 02:44 PM | Reply

"Fundamentally - we don't know anything."

I know the difference between natural and supernatural.

You're basically making excuses for writing "Beyond Here Be Dragons" on the map of human awareness.

#93 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 02:46 PM | Reply

"Philosopher Brian Garvey argues that the teapot analogy fails with regard to religion because, with the teapot, the believer and non-believer are simply disagreeing about one item in the universe and may hold in common all other beliefs about the universe, which is not true of an atheist and a theist.[3]"

^
Russel's Teapot isn't about an actual teapot, Corky.
It uses the teapot to explain how the burden of proof is not distributed equally across its believers or non-believers.

So this brings us to two pithy quotes.
1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
2. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

#94 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 02:49 PM | Reply

"each is asserting an alternative explanation of why the cosmos exists and is the way it is"

The evidence based assertion is the one that is, plainly speaking, right.
The alternative assertion is the one that is, plainly speaking, a reflection of the speaker's prejudices.

#95 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 02:51 PM | Reply

"Debunked on many levels."

Can the existence of the supernatural be debunked, on any levels?
Can it be validated, on any levels?
No, and No.

It's a nonsense concept.

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 02:53 PM | Reply

Here, I'll demonstrate that is is nonsense.

Define G-d.

#97 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 02:58 PM | Reply

Define G-d.
#97 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2024-03-06 02:58 PM | FLAG:

A theoretically conscious creative urge with the power to create and alter natural laws at the universal level, be that inherent or through technology so beyond our capacity to understand as to be indistinguishable from magic. Preferably personal and benevolent, but also some days possibly explained by a spoiled toddler left to play Universe Sim for too long so their parents could just have a moment of peace and quiet.

#98 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2024-03-06 03:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Now get all believers to agree with your definition.

Or... can there be more than one?

#99 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 03:42 PM | Reply

#98

As good as any, better than most.

What's pretty funny to me is that if it turned out that an ancient race of aliens, who would by necessity need to be non-material aliens or using non-material means as X cannot create X; a material universe cannot create itself... then once they landed and told us, atheists would like, "Wow, cool!".

#100 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-06 04:40 PM | Reply

"What's pretty funny to me is that if it turned out that an ancient race of aliens"

^
The funny part about that is Christians would only care about it in order to share The Gospel with them.

But if your definition of the supernatural is

I'm not saying it was aliens
(meme)
But it was aliens

Then we're not really having the same conversation.

#101 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 04:43 PM | Reply

"material universe cannot create itself"

Some guy named Einstein demonstrated the equivalence between mass and energy about a hundred years ago.

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 04:46 PM | Reply

"material universe cannot create itself"

Some guy named Einstein demonstrated the equivalence between mass and energy about a hundred years ago.

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 04:46 PM | Reply

He did it twice. Once for atheists, once for everyone else.

#104 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 04:47 PM | Reply

104 ;)

Any mathematician will tell you the same thing the Emeritus Prof of Mathematics at Oxford tells you...

www.youtube.com

Hawking got embarrassed on the point, saying that because there is gravity as a force, that means a material universe can be self-created. No sort of math says that is true.

#105 | Posted by Corky at 2024-03-06 05:04 PM | Reply

#105 Physics says nothing about the universe before Planck Time.

So whatever point you think you're making, it's a straw man.

#106 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 05:11 PM | Reply

Those who say the relevant or even marginally important feature of Christianity is that it posits the existence of a supernatural being, who then fathered a human child named Jesus,

Have completely missed the point of what Jesus said we're supposed to be doing here, now, in the natural world.

Completely missed the point.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-03-06 06:23 PM | Reply

@#94 ... So this brings us to two pithy quotes.
1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
2. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. ...

Worthy of a repeat, in bold.


So this brings us to two pithy quotes.
1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
2. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

#108 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-03-06 06:53 PM | Reply

Hitchen's razor.

#109 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2024-03-06 07:06 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort