Saturday, December 13, 2014

Studying to Show Your Own Self Approved


Tom Luth[shared link] Gotta love religion.




Tom Luth - Sadly, this IS the new Christinity. Not like th eone I grew up with.

Ed Gauthier - And they wonder why religion-wise so many people stay snugly up on the fence. Because raving loons like this are so often lurking below.

Muhammad Rasheed - Tom Luth wrote: "Gotta love religion. Sadly, this IS the new Christinity. Not like the one I grew up with."

Tom this isn't religion, nor is it the 'new Christianity.' It's THAT guy, and his poor understanding of what he is supposed to believe. His opposite Christian is also around, but they aren't as newsworthy.

Robert Waldo Brunelle Jr - It is not religion's fault that this man is a terrible person.


Muhammad Rasheed - Believe it or not, there's actual learning involved in religion. You have to actually study to find out what your Lord wants of you, practice the tenets until they become second nature, and continuously recalibrate yourself back to the standard that represents the Path of Righteousness. The study involved is actually intense, multi-layered, and isn't always easy, just like the deeper subjects in school. And also just like school, some folk are better at grasping it and excelling in the practical application of it than others. "What you get out of it depends on what you put in," and you can't be lazy with it.

And why would you be since your immortal soul is at stake?

Muhammad Rasheed - Why is the guy who got a solid D average in Computer Science the mouthpiece for the field? Obviously he's a dumbass. Should I let the dumbest guy in Computer Science have me "sit on the fence" as far as whether I should commit to it or not? Does that even make sense? I recognize that CS would be good to ME if I applied myself and took it seriously. What does his stupidity have to do with me?

Muhammad Rasheed - Religion is exactly the same.

Richard A. Tucker - Muhammad, believe what you want to but the fact remains that this has NEVER been an isolated case and since religion is too often what the followers say it is then there's no escaping stupid and even dangerous people espousing religion. That said there are those who apply their faith in a responsible manner, so maybe bashing religion in the general sense is not helping. At the same time, let's count the headlines haters like this cretin get every year and STILL the religious insist they are THE way. It's like this notion that pseudo environmentalists insist we need to save the planet. We NEED to save ourselves from what we do to our environment that makes it less reliable for us to sustain our lives. In short, we have to stop crapping where we eat, and the faithful need the humility and wisdom they claim to abide by. Both are aspects we need to embrace to survive. Today we have legions of literalists who, oddly enough, ignore 90-99% of their "good" word. That's not an accident.

Muhammad Rasheed - @Richard... My point is that the information that religion has is within the texts, no different than the information you need for your life is in the body of texts that make up other fields. If the individuals fail to study to show themselves approved in the eyes of their Lord, then the problem isn't religious -- no more than the failing grades of those who don't do the work in math are the fault of math. The laziest students, the weakest students, always seem to be the prominent mouthpiece for this particular subject, and in my opinion, those on the outside looking in that judge the field based on the dumbasses are being unreasonable to me. They wouldn't do that in any other field, so why would they do it in this one? Brunelle's cartoon message above is purest, uncut Common Sense, but people seem to want to be dumb when it comes to this topic.

I don't get it.

Richard A. Tucker - I think the idea that religion is common sense defies common sense. Religion doesn't make it a point to grow and expand. It's rigidly set. While some liberal faiths like Unitarian Universalists embrace change and grow (as do a few other religions) mostreligions are mired in dogma that doesn't come close to meeting the needs of our changing world. That's where the problem really lies. The irony there is most prophets, not Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, none of them adhered to or advocated adherence to dogma. They sometimes supported the rules but more often than not were breaking with them. To see so many people embrace dogma (especially the most limiting and soul crushing ones, usually made up by men and not prophet/teachers) as the way is disheartening.

Tom Luth - I'm not saying this man is a good follower of Christ, just that his views represent the overwhelming majority of the religious right, and all the nuts on talk radio. Like all the idiots that say Rush Limbaugh and Ann COulter are the only true Christians on radio. I think they are insane, but there are far more of them, than there are of me.

Muhammad Rasheed - In the end, it will be only you standing before the Lord being held accountable for what you alone decided to do. God won't ask a single one of them any questions regarding what you did, He will ask only you. Just like in school, no one is going to care what the other people in school did, what matters is did YOU study? Did YOU do the work?

Muhammad Rasheed - Richard A. Tucker wrote: “I think the idea that religion is common sense defies common sense.”

If you will scroll up you will notice that I said the message within Brunelle’s cartoon was one of Common Sense.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “Religion doesn't make it a point to grow and expand.”

Within the three organized religions of Abraham, paradise has 7 levels, each more favorable than the one below. This is because religion is based upon a merit system. God point blank told the believers to compete with each other in righteousness. As a member of a capitalist society you should be quite aware that good spirited competition leads directly to growth and expansion. Look at the examples of theocratic societies of the past that grew into glorious Golden Ages of legendary status.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “It's rigidly set. While some liberal faiths like Unitarian Universalists embrace change and grow (as do a few other religions) most religions are mired in dogma that doesn't come close to meeting the needs of our changing world.”

I disagree. Religions are all about human behavior, and our behaviors have never changed. The scripture, and the religions built around them, will always be relevant. There may briefly be individual aspects that aren’t used much during a particular era, but what goes around comes around, and it is probably still relevant in another corner of the world.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “That's where the problem really lies.”

No, the problem comes from those who not only choose to not take the faiths seriously, but they spread a viral message that we don’t need religion at all that catches on, spreading sin like mayo from a lack of accountability. The second worst problem is when the believers have a poor understanding of what it is they are supposed to believe.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “The irony there is most prophets, not Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, none of them adhered to or advocated adherence to dogma.”

What are you basing that on? An old Facebook meme?

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “They sometimes supported the rules but more often than not were breaking with them.”

More often than not, when the prophets received their Prophethood Commissions, they lived in a time when pagan, Godless , sin infested the land, and there were many laws worth tearing down in order to save the people from hellfire. But once they won, or moved away and settled their own tribes and villages, they established a firm but fair civilization based around the scripture revealed through them. Their very jobs was to instruct us in wisdom and scripture and to civilize us so we would prosper in this world and in the next. Can you be civilized and act right without dogma? Without it we’ve proved to be savages.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “To see so many people embrace dogma (especially the most limiting and soul crushing ones, usually made up by men and not prophet/teachers) as the way is disheartening.”

The real problem is the embracing of after-the-fact dogmas that usurped the message of God. His dogma is perfectly fine to embrace.

Richard A. Tucker - Muhammad, you're own embracing of dogma is your deal. I can't help but wonder why is it this infinite creator of the universe needs men, some rather out of touch men, to write his "inspirations"? The common sense thing I'm referring to is the notion that: 1. inspiration is not holy writ. The very definition of inspiration is that it's an idea derived from another source, not a literal copying transcribing of anything. In short it's a person's version of something, not the original. 2. God, as you know it was not shaped by an unconscious assessment of your world. It was taught to you by other humans who have worked diligently to make that notion our prevailing cultural (note that) influence (the very reason Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, a legion of pagans and literally hundreds of religions before today's upstarts even existed did not follow this faith, well, until some segment of their population were often forced to, or risk their death for not doing so, so said the "Christian", "Muslim", tyranny of your choice, conquerers). If logic offends you there's nothing I can do about it. But, religions have had millennia to get it right and they have utterly failed. If it's not the followers than it has to be their faith that is also less than perfect. If there is a judgement and I'm cast down, well, one lifetime is a ridiculous amount of time to get it right for a reward of eternal bliss anyway. That will not affect my compassion for others here and now, or my desire to do right by them. The first thing being I won't judge them by the measure of any religion. I will continue to work to help those who need it. So, believe as you will. I know why you do and will not think less of your humanity for it.

Andrew Brel - Absolutely right. You has gots ta love that religion.

Muhammad Rasheed - Richard A. Tucker wrote: “Muhammad, you're own embracing of dogma is your deal.”

lol Actually it’s everybody’s deal. Even the anti-religious folk believe in their own types of dogma depending on what moves them.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “I can't help but wonder why is it this infinite creator of the universe needs men, some rather out of touch men, to write his ‘inspirations?’”

Those kinds of fundamental level questions can be cleared up simply by reading His message. There’s no need to wonder, Richard.  He talks about that stuff in His Book.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “The common sense thing I'm referring to is the notion that: 1. inspiration is not holy writ. The very definition of inspiration is that it's an idea derived from another source, not a literal copying transcribing of anything. In short it's a person's version of something, not the original.”

‘Inspiration’ is when you are moved to create something because a spark for the idea of it came from an outside source; the creation is still yours. Certain chapters of my Monsters 101 graphic novel series were inspired by some of the findings within the works of Graham Hancock, for example. But when God (or His angel) addresses a person, and in modern terminology, downloads God’s Words into the guy, and instructs him to preach that message to others, that isn’t ‘inspiration.’ That’s REVELATION. That’s the sacred scriptural revelation of God, sent to us as a mercy and a guide. Man is not the author of revelation, God is.  Right now the canon of revelation is closed. There will be no more. The message of God on earth is complete.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “2. God, as you know it was not shaped by an unconscious assessment of your world. It was taught to you by other humans…”

Other believers introduced the message of the One God to me, just as other concepts of diabolical origin and influence are also introduced to people. In this case, I reached a point where I actively, consciously, and objectively began a comparative religion study, where I determined that Al-Islam was the best religion for me, and decided to embrace and take it seriously.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “…who have worked diligently to make that notion our prevailing cultural (note that) influence (the very reason Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, a legion of pagans and literally hundreds of religions before today's upstarts even existed did not follow this faith…”

The Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the most recent religions wrapped around a message that the One God Himself said has been always preached to mankind from Himself and previous messengers. The message of God is older than any pagan religion, which are all upstarts and falsehoods. The very first homo sapien was not given paganism by his Lord.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “…well, until some segment of their population were often forced to, or risk their death for not doing so, so said the "Christian", "Muslim", tyranny of your choice, conquerers).”

There is no compulsion in religion. Individuals who decide to attack another based on what they decide to believe are not following the faiths, but their own tyrannical desires. This is another reference to the Common Sense item in Brunelle’s cartoon above, that is only dismissed by those who carry around a dogma that rejects Common Sense.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “If logic offends you there's nothing I can do about it.”

At no time is misinformation considered “logic.” I suggest you reconsider your stance.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “But, religions have had millennia to get it right and they have utterly failed.”

Religions represent our ideals. Whether we “get it right” is an individual walk, not a collective walk. As an individual, if you decide to find the tenets of the faith tiresome and you want to do what you want to do instead of striving to reach towards the ideals, then again Common Sense dictates that it is not the religion that has failed, but the individual making the weak claim that they subscribe to that religion.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “If it's not the followers than it has to be their faith that is also less than perfect.”

It is 100% the followers who are at fault when they deliberately decided to do things that are frowned upon within the religious system. Again this is an item that should reasonably be considered Common Sense, but as I mentioned earlier, grasping the principles of religion actually requires study & effort… study & effort that I personally find missing from those who are against religion, as you are demonstrating here.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “If there is a judgement and I'm cast down, well, one lifetime is a ridiculous amount of time to get it right for a reward of eternal bliss anyway.”

Well, that’s one way of looking at it. Another way would be to recognize that there is nothing involved within the system that you are not capable of doing yourself, you just need to study it. Throw out the false information that you were given by those anti-religious folk who have worked diligently to make those false notions our prevailing popular cultural trend as of late, and get smart on this stuff so you will get to experience the eternal bliss.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “That will not affect my compassion for others here and now, or my desire to do right by them. The first thing being I won't judge them by the measure of any religion. I will continue to work to help those who need it. So, believe as you will. I know why you do and will not think less of your humanity for it.”

No offense, but in this thread I find your understanding and insight into religion and its principles to be very weak at best, and grossly misinformed at worst. Pretty much everything you’ve said about it, that you somehow think represents “logic,” isn’t reflected in the texts at all, but is straw man-like dogma that is passed around as truth by the atheist/agnostic community... opinions that I often debate against online. It’s impossible to take an uninformed – but pretending to be informed – position seriously. Again I ask that you reconsider your stance, take the time to actually learn what the religions’ message and it’s true history actually is, learn to discern the difference between the tenets of the faith versus the willful non-religious actions of individual members of that faith, and you will be much closer to being able to speak on this topic with the form of authority and insight you think you possess now.

Peace.

Richard A. Tucker - Well, of course you think my logic is weak. You have not faced this issue as I have after a life of researching (I'm 55 and was supposed to be the priest of the family) not just my own efforts to try to embrace faith but the failure of any to impart on me the wisdom of embracing their own. You go to a lot of effort to apply what is the same circular "logic" I've seen my entire life and it boils down to faith being what it is because people want it too badly to actually look at what it is, which is stories they believe because they want to. Faith is the very absence of facts. That's fine, but it is illogical. That's neither good nor bad but I can't embrace something just because somebody said I should. I also personally find the wonder of this universe to be more profound on a daily basis than anything any book of mythology has ever come close to inspiring. I gave up the search for faith about a decade ago. I still like some of the stories but I know that's all they are or ever will be with some considerable certainty. Just because some history is gleaned from those texts doesn't prop up the entire story as it's been told. I do not say that lightly. By the way, it's people like yourself that make religion such a torturous chore. Not only can you not simply believe and be content with that, but you have to make a point of denigrating anyone who doesn't follow you blindly. Worse, your utter arrogance in assuming I haven't researched this is exactly why you have lost all sense of the humility your faith instructs you to have. Your hubris is as appalling as I expect it to be. Yet another "believer" who puts his ego in front of his alleged faith. Keep that up, please.

Andrew Brel - 'Religion is a torturous chore' you say. But its so much worse than that.

Muhammad Rasheed - Richard A. Tucker wrote: “Well, of course you think my logic is weak. You have not faced this issue as I have after a life of researching (I'm 55 and was supposed to be the priest of the family) not just my own efforts to try to embrace faith but the failure of any to impart on me the wisdom of embracing their own.”

I apologize, but nothing you’ve typed thus far has demonstrated any kind of religious research.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “You go to a lot of effort to apply what is the same circular 'logic' I've seen my entire life and it boils down to faith being what it is because people want it too badly to actually look at what it is, which is stories they believe because they want to.”

I don’t know what you were supposed to be “boiling down,” but this comment is a straw man that doesn’t address my point at all. My point is that it is education, and the will to perform, that determine the difference between a “good religious person” from the guy represented in Tom’s link. You have personally decided that scripture isn’t real because you ‘feel’ it isn’t real. Pretending that that is a logical reason to disbelieve is actually illogical.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “Faith is the very absence of facts. That's fine, but it is illogical.”

I disagree. Faith is the belief that the facts are out there to find. This concept is actually the driver for technological progress. If we didn’t have faith that the things we strive for can be obtained, we would never progress towards anything.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “That's neither good nor bad but I can't embrace something just because somebody said I should.”

It depends on who the “somebody” is. If that “somebody” happened to be omniscient, omnipotent, and 100% had your best interests to heart, and created from scratch the reality you find yourself within, then you would be a fool not to embrace what this being said. On the other hand, if some person no more informed into the mysteries of life than you are told you that God isn’t real, the bible’s stories aren’t true, religion is a fiction and an oppressive crutch that has failed humanity, and you decided to believe it, that would make you a fool.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “I also personally find the wonder of this universe to be more profound on a daily basis than anything any book of mythology has ever come close to inspiring.”

That “book of mythology” said that the universe came into being at a definitive origin point in the distant past. The atheist community assumed that was a lie because they go around assuming that religion is falsehood and doesn’t know what it’s talking about, so of course they theorized an eternal universe that never had a beginning. As of today, Big Bang Theory is the prevailing model for the universe’s origins, with all facts supporting what religion said from the beginning.

book of mythology: 1
atheism: 0

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “I gave up the search for faith about a decade ago.”

This will be your undoing.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “I still like some of the stories but I know that's all they are or ever will be with some considerable certainty.”

Remember religion has been right about the origins of the universe even though the atheists, with their fake ‘logic,’ found the concept counter-intuitive. Your blind faith that the claims of sacred scripture are not true, don’t have a leg to stand on.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “Just because some history is gleaned from those texts doesn't prop up the entire story as it's been told.”

So you admit that some of the history in it that was able to be scientifically verified is also true, along with the aspect of reality that is fundamentally most important… the origins of the universe.

book of mythology: 2
atheism: 0

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “I do not say that lightly.”

Really? Then based on the current scorecard, what basis are you using for your faith that religion and scripture aren’t true?

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “By the way, it's people like yourself that make religion such a torturous chore.”

I don’t mind. I find the Godless to be ideologically worthless and crushingly narrow-minded. I guess that makes us even.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “Not only can you not simply believe and be content with that…”

This is a hypocritical comment. Do you ever find it possible to simply disbelieve in religion without taking obligatory potshots at religious status posts? Hm? For my part, the religions represent my sacred belief system which is very personal, and very important to me. When someone says something that’s clearly wrong, like you’ve done in this thread, why wouldn’t I say something? Should I sit back quiet and let people poison society with bullshit false information about the faith? If someone says something clearly wrong and crazy about things you care about – passionately but uninformed – do you sit quiet and just let them? Why? I consider that cowardice.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “…but you have to make a point of denigrating anyone who doesn't follow you blindly.”

For one, if you confine your comments to those on which you are actually informed, you would be less likely to feel “denigrated” when someone checks you for spreading misinformation. Second, why would I want someone to follow me? I’m an advocate for the religions, not a pope or whatever.

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “Worse, your utter arrogance in assuming I haven't researched this is exactly why you have lost all sense of the humility your faith instructs you to have.”

1.) The religion says XYZ
2.) Richard said religion said ABC
3.) Muhammad pointed out the religion actually said XYZ
4.) Richard has a fit and proclaims Muhammad is arrogant
5.) wtf?

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “Your hubris is as appalling as I expect it to be.”

I am a believer in the One God of Abraham and my opinion comes from my study into the message He has provided to guide mankind. You are a disbeliever; one of the unrepentant hellbound who said my Lord isn’t real based on your blind faith and feelings. What is in anything you say on the topic that I should respect or take seriously?

Richard A. Tucker wrote: “Yet another 'believer' who puts his ego in front of his alleged faith. Keep that up, please.”

The Authority that backs my “hubris” is no less than the Lord of all the worlds. Tell me what is backing your words, please, that I may compare their quality.

Richard A. Tucker - I'm not reading this one and yes, from the first few lines I see your insults aimed at me and the same old circular illogical stuff. Go on your way arrogant one. I'm done.

Muhammad Rasheed -



Richard A. Tucker - One thing you might note, is you have no authority over me and neither does your god.

Richard A. Tucker - And your ego proves there is no god as you believe. Way to go.

Muhammad Rasheed - You will find out otherwise on the Last Day. Good luck.

Richard A. Tucker - Can't wait for that cold grave for you either.

No comments:

Post a Comment