Gay marriage insidious and dangerous, says the Pope (2 Viewers)

[Lipin]

The picture of God that scorch has was not painted by him but by the religious texts themselves.

 

[Lentern]

The picture of God that scorch has was not painted by him but by the religious texts themselves.

see

How can you believe that god is nothing more than an imaginary creation of the minds of the delusional and yet proceed to put such strict parameters on him(or her). I mean the only place God exists, as far as you're concerned the only place he exists is in our minds yet you are able to define him as a cruel, nasty, vindicative, prejudiced, jealous and proud. You base it clearly on the sacred texts but again you believe the stories of these texts were either lie or the delusional speculation of fools, either way manufactured in their minds.

 

[Existential]

How can you believe that god is nothing more than an imaginary creation of the minds of the delusional and yet proceed to put such strict parameters on him(or her). I mean the only place God exists, as far as you're concerned the only place he exists is in our minds yet you are able to define him as a cruel, nasty, vindicative, prejudiced, jealous and proud. You base it clearly on the sacred texts but again you believe the stories of these texts were either lie or the delusional speculation of fools, either way manufactured in their minds.

a manufacture of their minds that defies all known logic to an extent... perhaps to create a religious cult... lust for power ect. that comes with religions ie. there has to be a pope or someone at the top of the hierarchy.

and as for the classification of "God", your guess is as good as mine - those with 'faith' say there are 3 forms: God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I dont' mind the other two, it's the fact that a human claimed to be "godly" that makes the best of people sceptical.

 

[Lentern]

a manufacture of their minds that defies all known logic to an extent... perhaps to create a religious cult... lust for power ect. that comes with religions ie. there has to be a pope or someone at the top of the hierarchy.

and as for the classification of "God", your guess is as good as mine - those with 'faith' say there are 3 forms: God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. I dont' mind the other two, it's the fact that a human claimed to be "godly" that makes the best of people sceptical.

Which is all fine and dandy but doesn't explain the idea of applying parameters to what another person believes.

 

[Scorch]

Gee you look really convincing when you ignore the question and just restate your opinion in an even clumsier fashion. Honestly, you're "simply requesting" that people to conform to this picture of religion which you yourself have painted and done so deliberately poorly, so you can then pick at all all the flaws which you put there in the first place. That's pathetic.

Not at all, unless you are trying to tell me that God is, and has always been, a loving and forgiving being, not prone to anger at the slightest things, ordering violent acts, sickening cruelty and extreme genocide.

I am not imposing anything upon anyone. What I am saying is that you cannot make up a version of God that you find nice and appeasing and then use such an image to defend Christianity, especially when the Bible contains some of the most violent, backwards and barbaric ethical exhortations of any ancient religion.

If you wish to defend Christianity on the basis of a made-up conception of God derived by cherry-picking of the Bible, ignoring the parts that don't suit such a conception and your own random thoughts, then you will rightfully be called out upon it.

So what point is it that you're actually trying to make, here?

 

[Lentern]

Not at all, unless you are trying to tell me that God is, and has always been, a loving and forgiving being, not prone to anger at the slightest things, ordering violent acts, sickening cruelty and extreme genocide.

I am not imposing anything upon anyone. What I am saying is that you cannot make up a version of God that you find nice and appeasing and then use such an image to defend Christianity, especially when the Bible contains some of the most violent, backwards and barbaric ethical exhortations of any ancient religion.

If you wish to defend Christianity on the basis of a made-up conception of God derived by cherry-picking of the Bible, ignoring the parts that don't suit such a conception and your own random thoughts, then you will rightfully be called out upon it.

So what point is it that you're actually trying to make, here?

You are claiming Christianity is exclusively a manifestation of biblical fundamentalism, you are wrong and incredibly for such a smug little atheist, you are also illogical. You cannot on one hand believe that God and Christianity is just the unfounded speculation of liars and or fools and then in the same breath assert that someone who doesn't possess specific traits as defined by you, as a false christian or "cherry picker."

The church is a concept, an institution, it doesn't actually think you dunce, it has no mind to do so, understandings of God are formulated in our minds and in our souls. Is it influenced by the sacred texts and clergy? Certainly, but influence only and no more. I can't believe you are actually arguing about the make up of something you believe doesn't exist. It's tantamount to claiming you know what kind of accent Santa Clause would have.

 

[Scorch]

You are claiming Christianity is exclusively a manifestation of biblical fundamentalism, you are wrong and incredibly for such a smug little atheist, you are also illogical. You cannot on one hand believe that God and Christianity is just the unfounded speculation of liars and or fools and then in the same breath assert that someone who doesn't possess specific traits as defined by you, as a false christian or "cherry picker."

The church is a concept, an institution, it doesn't actually think you dunce, it has no mind to do so, understandings of God are formulated in our minds and in our souls. Is it influenced by the sacred texts and clergy? Certainly, but influence only and no more. I can't believe you are actually arguing about the make up of something you believe doesn't exist. It's tantamount to claiming you know what kind of accent Santa Clause would have.

No, I am claiming that Christianity's conception of God entirely ignores his acts and nature as depicted in their own Bible. A loving God does not order that his people murder, slaughter and destroy entire civilizations, or that women who are raped should be stoned, or that women should stay quiet in the presence of men, nor does he require any brutal scapegoat of human sacrifice in order to simply help his own creations.

What this leads is to the hypocrisy whereby the only way Christianity is able to appear somewhat modern and less barbaric, is by rationalizing the necessity of ignoring large chunks of its own Holy Book in order to continue peddling their image of a loving and kind God.

It quite frankly doesn't matter whether or not I believe in God because I am pointing out the necessary hypocrisy of your religion, and by extension pointing out the flawed, barbaric nature of the Bible upon which it is based. Whether or not I believe in God is irrelevant.