I’ve always been curious, where exactly does that Mathew passage leave Priests/Rabbis and churchgoers?
I think the folks the passage refers to would ring a big bell and pray out loud, to call attention to themselves. That’s a far cry from respectfully gathering to pray communally. Plus, “where two or three are gathered”, IOW, there is a call to celebrating as a community.
Ditto. When someone goes “God is such an asshole blah blah blah” I don’t assume they believe in God.
I missed this post the other day. Sorry.
Yes. He believes his God is the only true God, superior to all other flavors of what others might consideer God. But that is fine with me. That is his right. Personal expression of religion needs such latitude, lest it cease being a personal expression of one’s religious beliefs. As I said, I’m no fan of all this public thanking of God, (I think God knows if your appreciative or not) but if someone wants to do it, they do and should have that right.
And thank you for your kind words. Sorry if I got a little heated. But religion around these parts often gets pissed on.
Indeed…in these days of antibiotics, and all.
I’m not a bible scholar, or anything; but I was dragged to Sunday School for years as a child (mostly to impress my mother’s friends with what a good parent she was). Isn’t there a scripture along the lines of:
“Be not like the zealot on the street-corner, praising God in a loud voice: for surely I say to you that he has already received his reward.”
?
Just sayin’…
Upon review, I see that the inaccurately named Dumbguy has answered my question.
Yes, but just because he has the right to do something doesn’t mean that it’s a polite thing to do, or that other people don’t have the right to say he shouldn’t have done it. I have the right to say, “You’re a big fat gay pig” at random people on the streets, but that doesn’t make it a very nice thing to do. And they would be entirely justified in telling me that they don’t like me calling them a big fat gay pig.
I find his behavior particularly offensive, because he is not only saying something divisive when it’s not necessary, he’s saying that he thinks God approves of such behavior. I strongly believe that God does not approve of that sort of thing.
That you think that someone might express a personal religious belief like he did (and that *some *people may find an insult in it) and that that is equivalent to you hurling blatant insults directly at people about their appearance boggles the mind. They are different in both kind and degree.
As far as it being polite, I think you have to read an insult into it, but I might agree with you here. But that was not the objection I was attacking. I was countering the nonsense that JW was advocatiing or admitting that there was more than one God and other such semantic childishness.
So Magellan01, what is your answer to the question I posed at my post #51?
IAN Magellan01, but I’m going to respond nevertheless. I don’t see the point of your analogy. Unless there’s a group of people out there who don’t believe in cheese, and several other groups who only believe in a specific kind or kinds of cheese, this doesn’t hold up.
Let’s try this another way. What do you think he SHOULD have said in order to make it clear that he acknowledges that other folks believe in a different God or gods than the only God he believes exists?
You may refer to the last five words in my post immediatly prior to yours. Did you read them as some kind of request to repost your silliness? If so, you misread.
And now, since you think you’ve concoted some mighty logic trap that will be my undoing, let me deal with your perilous post 51:
My answer: (start drumroll pointing to impending doom) I have no idea. Because based on your contruibutions to this discussion I don’t think you’re much good at thinking. Now, a person of at least average intellect would of course think there was more then one cheese. Just like a person of at least average intellect would know that the analogy is dumb and inapt. Yes, both.
But maybe if you direct me and others to this mighty logic trap again, it’ll get better. I hear that works well.
In the meantime, you can explain who the commandment itself makes the same error as the one you claim and therefore puts God himself at a fundemental contradiction, thereby pulling the rug out from all Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Asimovian and Magellan01, a simple yes or no would suffice.
I apologize for taking a while to get back to you (as the original question was directed at me. Of course the answer to your scenario is that you believe in multiple kinds of cheese, hell you are standing before a cheese counter that likely contains them. God, however, is a concept with immediately observable proof.
A better parallel would involve concepts rather than hard objects. For example:
“I am going to give this lecture on Evolution, but first let me explain which Theory of Evolution.”
I then talk about Punctuated Equilibrium and how all the other theories are total bullshit. I am acknowledging that other people believe in those other theories, but that I think they are wrong and not how the world really works.
Flight all you are doing is making my point for me. The reason you say “let me explain which Theory of Evolution” is because there is more than one theory. All that it takes for a theory to exist is for someone to propound it. Acknowledging that other people believe in a theory is precisely to acknowledge that the theory exists.
Which theory is correct is an entirely separate issue.
Okay, let’s give this a go. Your analogy is inapt because there is not a group of people who believe there is only one true cheese. That if they did believe this, all someone would have to do to disavow of such nonsense is to show them some edam, meunster, swiss, provolone, bleu, ricotta, and brie and shove it in their mouths.
Your insistence that JW’s words show that he beleives in the existence of other gods is ridiculous. He believes, as his faith dictates, they he believe in one and only one God. He is aware, I am sure, that others do not share his faith. That other faiths exist. And that these other faiths may believe in other gods. Hence, his statement.
Now if you wish to insist otherwise, I ask you if you think the commandment I cited several times similarly shows that its author also is of the mind that there are other gods? If so, why? If not, why not?
How about because the HUMAN BEING who wrote the commandment down for the first time (its author) truly believed that there were more gods than one, but was atttempting to establish a framework for his tribe that would limit them to having truck only with this particular warrior god?
Any second now, you’re going to give a bald answer to my question at my post #51, right? Don’t worry, I can wait.
Read my post #53. You have my position all wrong.
Can you travel back in time?
Allow me to translate for you into the one word you so desire: yes. Do you not realize by now that your hypothetical is inapt, and therefore a waste of time? Why do you keep harping on it and focusing attention on your poor grasp of logic? You might want to stop. Just an idea.
Whoops. I confused you with one of the other religion whiners. My apologies. I’m glad to see that you see the stupidity of that position. But your second sentence presents an equally silly claim, the one that the other nonsense is based on.His words do not say what you think they say. As I said, childish semantic gaming. If you can’t see that by now, I guees you won’t be seeing it this lifetime. Stay away from sharp objects. What follows is similar inanity. He said precisely what he wanted to say. Why do you think different? You’re simply insistent that he did something wrong, to the point of thinking you can read his mind and to comment on his courage, both of which you know nothing of.
And you still haven’t adressed the commandment, that you should have the same problem with. So, let’s hear your take.
OK then.
You have made one attempt at giving a reason why my analogy is inapt, namely “… because there is not a group of people who believe there is only one true cheese.” I’ve pondered this, but it seems like a complete non sequitur to me.
How does the non-existence of this group make my analogy inapt?
It’s of no moment anyway. If you think my analogy is inapt because in real life there is no “group of people who believe there is only one true cheese”, then let’s alter the analogy:
A simple yes or no will suffice.
The commandment is an example of badly worded and confusing language that is not presently interpreted by a particular religious group to mean what it literally says. That is not going to help you prove that some other geezer who made an similarly badly worded statement didn’t accidentally end up saying something that he didn’t mean.