They are all sheep leading everyone to slaughter and don't seem to ccare about anyone else except themselves.

We have a visitor from your area. Funny timing too. A professor from Central Wash. University in Ellensburg. is giving some talks here on conversations in an angry age. He has also let it be known his father was a minister and he was on track to get tenure at a religions college in Illinois. He had doubts and eventually dropped out of religion and had to start a new tenure track. He is well aware of FFRF and knows Daniel Barker. Very interesting.

David Smith, Civil Conversation in an Angry Age

This will be an interactive presentation by visiting philosopher and religious studies scholar David E. Smith. Dr. Smith’s presentation poses these questions: at what point does a conversation become a battle? Why do some opinions inflame our emotions, leading to anger, fights, and even the end of relationships? He will offer a deep look at those moments when civility breaks down. By mapping the structure of how we converse, and digging into the root causes of both civility and incivility, Smith explores how we can have meaningful, respectful conversations on notoriously difficult topics like politics, religion, and morality. In our increasingly polarized political environment, Smith provides participants with the tools needed to embark upon more thoughtful, fruitful discussions. David Smith holds a PhD in religious studies from Temple University. For the past decade he has held roles as a lecturer, assistant professor, and associate professor of philosophy and religious studies. He currently teaches at the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute at the University of Washington and is a 2019 scholar for the Humanities Washington Speakers Bureau program.

@JackPedigo How cool is that? Nice to see these types of lectures. Matt Manweiller use to teach poly-sci at CWU. What a fucking ass wipe. Right wing, misogynist who was fired over his habit of exchanging grades for sex. He ran for state legislature and was finally told to resign. CWU is an island of progressiveness. Let me know how the presentation goes.

@silverotter11 The main presentation was last night. Today was a film and discussion group. We had over 30 last night but only half that for the film/discussion. 12 women and us 3 guys.

The veil of tears they have helped to create. I simply don't understand how these "moral" people can think and and engage in such activities?

@brentan That is certainly a point that can and should be taken but it is not particularly consistent in my view unless it's all one choses to see. The scriptures also talk about god's wrath and judgment, how people will receive the "just recompense of their reward" if they are disobedient, how they should be good slaves or slave owners as the case may be, and a lot of other morally repugnant stuff.

@JackPedigo In my view, they do it by evaluating what is moral by what is doctrinally "sound" by their lights -- by what is "right"eous -- not by whether things cause actual boons or harms. Blind obedience to god and his alleged earthly representatives is what constitutes morality to them.

The thing is both testaments talk about how people should behave. Granted, the Hebrew scriptures mellowed over time, being barbaric in its early days. Bringing God's behaviour into it only distracts from human obligation. They believe in an end-time judgement that God will carry out. There is no indication in later scriptures to hint that believers should become part of the execution of that judgement. As for slavery, I'm sure the apostle Paul promoted decent behaviour on the parts of both slave and master because he thought God's kingdom was imminent.

@brentan Well by design all scriptures are a vague template that can be understood in many ways, and one of them is the liberal Christian tradition that emphasizes community, love, the great virtues including actual morality rather than a faux legalistic morality. And you're right to point that understanding out, because it certainly (1) exists and (2) tends to get short shrift from critics like us atheists.

It is however my view that they are projecting onto scripture a more modern sensibility that scripture doesn't actually unambiguously advocate, but we're so used to hearing scriptures framed in more enlightened modern-day understanding that we assume it speaks with a moral force and authority that it really doesn't.

As such, in my view -- which could be wrong -- you probably give Paul too much credit for deliberate moral triage because of the expediency of his belief in the imminent return of Christ. I think he was merely reflecting the primitive moral conscience of his day. Slavery was a simple fact of life, there was no concept of human rights or equal rights under the law to frame anything else.

This is not a dig against Paul, who was merely a product of his times. It is a dig against those who claim the scriptures to be some great moral document. Scripture invariably leads from behind, and reflects the moral development and understanding of the era that produced it. I give 100% of the credit for modern moral understanding to the hard work of generations of giants on whose shoulders we stand, so that we have the luxury of seeing in scripture what we want to see and then viewing it as some guiding light when in truth it's actually quite pathetic.

@mordant Of course they will justify any actions. They will say their God's told them this was the moral way. And we all wonder why they are losing membership.

So basically, screw all non-Christians (and which other sects does this include). More proof of the idea of "love thy neighbor" is lost on these cretins. And their heaven will be full of them???

Yes there are so many interpretations of prophecy (eschatology) among evangelicals -- broadly, pre, mid- and post-millennialist, pre- mid- and post-tribulationist, and the various combinations thereof, with varying levels of literal vs metaphorical interpretations mixed in. Or in other words you can concoct pretty much whatever you wish to from the fever-dream that is The Revelation of St John.

In general the idea you're citing is that when the 3rd temple is established, the Great Tribulation begins (3.5 or 7 years depending on which sub-dogma you subscribe to), culminating in the return of Christ to establish his earthly kingdom for 1,000 years, following which Satan is loosed on the earth again, resulting in a new struggle between good and evil, which ends up provoking god to destroy the heavens and earth and completely recreate them. After which the righteous will live in sinless, deathless bliss and harmony for ever.

Got it? Good ...

@mordant Gosh that came across very arrogant.

@brentan It was facetious. Sorry it came across that way. I was trying to convey that if you understand all that confusing BS, good for you.