Understanding Religion's Relationship To Human Social Systems

  Complete analysis of Cameron’s most recent comment “Are you included in the list of ‘not infallible’? My disagreement of your ‘most of what you said is correct’ tells you nothing more than that I don’t agree with that statement. You are guilty of what you accused me of. That is your problem. It’s not one I can help you overcome. I’m not ‘Christian’. Shalom.” The context of Cameron’s intervention matters. My original comment was addressed to Cristy. Cameron was not involved in that exchange when it began. I told Cristy that: My review was still incomplete. Most of her OP had already survived scrutiny. I remained uncertain about some points. I was consulting qualified academic sources to verify, amend, and refine my conclusions. I would share the completed review afterward. She could choose whether I shared it publicly or privately. Cameron therefore entered the conversation already knowing that: The review was unfinished. My claim-by-claim conclusions had not yet been presented. M...

A FB debate-group ADMIN wrote: " Why do you ask for evidence of God when you are not searching for God?" --- In reply, I offered this: " I can't speak for anyone else. But ... On the rare occasion I ask for evidence, I'm hoping to help the "*theist" realize they don't have any actually-good evidence. (*usually either a Christian fundamentalist or an Islamic fundamentalist)" --- In reply, that ADMIN said: " l like that answer.     Now l doubt you can prove your claim they don’t have good evidence" ---- 5 weeks later,  Steve Tysinger said (TO me and ABOUT me):  James Apperson Us and them mentality. Instead of trying to get at the truth, you're interested in converting them.   -- My reply to Steve: Steve Tysinger Nope. You have fundamentally misread both my purpose and the exchange. * I was explaining why, in the past, I sometimes bothered to ask religious fundamentalists for evidence. * I was not expressing an intention to deco...

  PEOPLE ARE BEING VALUED FOR THEIR UTILITY—NOT LOVED FOR THEIR HUMANITY [ Image description:  The hardest realization is discovering you were loved for your utility, not your humanity.”] If we entertain the notion that Bible-God is real— OR if we merely discuss him as we would discuss Darth Vader within the Star Wars canon— the moral problem remains the same. Whether Bible-God actually exists is an entirely separate question from whether the character, relationships, and systems presented within the biblical canon are morally admirable. And the “moral of the story” remains: People are being valued for their utility to power—not loved for the irreducible humanity within them. WHAT DETERMINES A PERSON’S VALUE? Across much of the eclectic biblical canon, human beings are valued primarily according to their usefulness within God’s purposes: whether they obey him; whether they glorify him; whether they advance his plans; whether they preserve his chosen order; and whether they fu...

" re read the gospel of John with particular emphasis on the 20th chapter verse 30-31. John states the entire reason why he like three other witnesses bothered to put their experiences to paper and make a record of these things. John says concerning Christ “We held the creator of the universe in our hands. “ " - Justin Justice Justinson My reply:  Justin Justice Justinson —John 20:30–31 makes none of the claims you just attributed to it. Here is what those verses actually say: “Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God…” That is a statement of the book’s theological purpose. It does not say: that the author was John; that the author was one of Jesus’s twelve apostles; that the author personally witnessed those signs; that four eyewitnesses independently recorded their experiences; or, “We held the creator of the universe in our ...