Understanding Religion's Relationship To Human Social Systems

  My initial thoughts about everything said in that article  (<--- link), in the order these issues appear: 1. "Dear atheists" is a Red Flag. It indicates to me that the speaker is immersed in a Culture War Polemicist, Religious Fundamentalist environment; most probably Protestant.  It tells me they're either from the USA or study with a church that spread from the USA.  It tells me they vote politically Conservative.  It tells me they aren't really prioritizing the "saving" of as many souls as possible, but are instead scoring cathartic points for their team.   Otherwise, they'd be directing their efforts to a broader audience, and not making these issues into an "us vs (specific)them" issue.  This impression is further given by the rest of that sentence "(atheists) never read to the bottom of this article". The speaker could not possibly account for every atheist who has ever started reading his article.  But he thinks, with con

  Entire history (so far) for this conversation: A Facebook grouped called "Order Of The Pen". It's not a religious debate or discussion group. But the admins do sometimes allow controversial topics.  Someone started that thread by asking "Has anyone ever verbalized as opposed to simply thinking and feeling that it is justifiable to hold God accountable ? It has come up in conversation with people I've known , from time to time.  Regardless of whether they've belonged to a particular faith , left that faith or were never." In reply, I posted this quote (as this exact image). In reply, this followed: Linda L Digan  said:  "Maybe you should learn about God's reputation before reposting such nonsense. God will bring justice, God created the earth and everything in it. God is sovereign, omnipotent, omnipresent, God loves those that turn to Him and obey His commands and statues. God is not to blame for the sin of this world and the evil in it. Your p

  Yesterday, someone asked "Why can't Jehovah's Witnesses use technology to reach the whole world if God is behind them?" -- I found that to be a reasonable observation. In reply, I added: "Fair point. But this also applies to all Christianity-themed evangelizing sects. "God" sure is bad at his job.". -- In reply, he was confused. He said "Why would you say that? All Christianity does not claim that God is ONLY with their organization like the Jehovah's witness cult does." -- When I read that, I paused to reflect. It's like he doesn't really speak English or something. I never said anything about that other matter. I am likely wasting my time here. I'll try once more to communicate this very basic concept. But man o' man is that weird. That I need to explain a concept to someone ... who STARTED this conversation by making the very same point that he suddenly can't follow.  -- Hi Marcus My point is the same p

Where I'm looking it from: Outside looking in. I'm not a believer in Bible or Bible-God. So it doesn't really matter to me personally what the intended meanings were. But I think it can be fun to examine. Some of the reasons I don't think Trinity is a legit reading: 1. The definite consensus among qualified historians is that: Trinitarianism was a much later development. There aren't any appropriately credentialed experts who think Trinitarianism was intended by any of the writers, except for some few minimally-credentialed persons who had pre-sworn religious obligation to Trinitarianism before they went to a college or university to add academic credentials to their clout. 2. I've read all of it. The texts, the different bible versions for those texts, and the arguments for-and-against. At some point, I realized it's a big "wheel". Someone's understanding of verse-A is supported by: Their understanding of verse-B. Their understanding of

  So here's a thing I keep hearing from Christians: "Your belief that there is no God provides you comfort. You think you will not be judged for your sins. It's called denial." [Note. That is a direct copied and pasted quote from a Christian who posted those exact words this morning. The only changes I made: I corrected their spelling, grammar, and punctuation.] -- Here's why it's not logical: First, that way of putting it is framing the matter as a modern-day, American, culture-war polemic.  Nobody else talks that way. Even most Christians realize it makes zero sense to single out "atheists" for something that Christianity believes all non-Christians are guilty of.  As such, if they wanted to make the same point, they'd say something like " Pretending that you don't believe in Christianity provides you comfort. You think you will not be judged for your sins. It's called denial.". A slightly more reasonable Christian would ph

King James Bible To the chief Musician, A Psalm of David.  The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt ,  they have done abominable works ,  there is none that doeth good. That last line, there, means: there is none (of those fools) that doeth good. It's not talking about all humans.  --- Brenton Septuagint Translation  For the end, Psalm of David.  The fool has said in his heart, There is no God.  They have corrupted themselves, and become abominable in their devices; there is none that does goodness, there is not even so much as one . --  Contemporary English Version   Only a fool would say, "There is no God!" People like that are worthless;  they are heartless and cruel and never do right. Psalm 10:4  The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. They were thinking back to an older concept; where it was the same  for people before the flood. The echoed sentiments are this: that the ki