Pastor alarmed after Trump-loving congregants deride Jesus' teachings as 'weak'

[Shaul]

So I never implied that all conservatives were christian, making your response pointless.

Yes, you did. You wrote "What's ridiculous is pretending that Jesus' teachings and examples aren't demonstratively antithetical to conservative ideology," You made no distinction. What is truly ridiculous is for someone such as yourself who admits to not being a Christian presuming to tell others what Jesus would think.

 

[Father Heathen]

Yes, you did. You wrote "What's ridiculous is pretending that Jesus' teachings and examples aren't demonstratively antithetical to conservative ideology," You made no distinction.

And how exactly does that imply that all conservatives are Christian?

What is truly ridiculous is for someone such as yourself who admits to not being a Christian presuming to tell others what Jesus would think.

Presume? He's quoted in scripture. See post #15

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Yes, you did. You wrote "What's ridiculous is pretending that Jesus' teachings and examples aren't demonstratively antithetical to conservative ideology," You made no distinction. What is truly ridiculous is for someone such as yourself who admits to not being a Christian presuming to tell others what Jesus would think.

Shaul, he is not saying that all conservatives are Christians. What he IS saying is that (and this is well known) there is a subset of Christians that are so attached to Trump and Conservative politics that they are confusing it with what it means to be a Christian. He is also saying that their support of Trump, who is a genuinely evil man, goes against what Christianity teaches. How can anyone who claims to be ethical support a rapist, a crook, a person who tried to overthrow a free and fair election? It makes no sense. It is a classic case of cognitive dissonance.

 

[Ella S.]

Um, where do you get the concept that there's such a thing as "theistic evolution" as any sort of science? It's a term but it needs to be expanded upon. There's evolution for sure and plenty of theists accept the established and have no qualms with such and their own faith but that's hardly the same thing as 'pseudoscience'. I've known a coupla people who identify as Christians who teach evolution, one of whom was an assistant professor of biology so you're being rather ignorant and derogatory on this score. Science is entirely neutral on the existence of God or an afterlife so to claim otherwise is somewhat biased and irrelevant isn't it?

Your comments about 'educated Christians' et al just come across as utterly patronizing in honesty.

Science is the application of critical rationalism in order to falsify or sustain empirical claims. Empirical, in this context, means that it is based on observable evidence rather than deduced tautologically from definition. All questions about whether something exists in or affects the visible world is therefore subject to empirical investigation.

We call the world that is observable to the senses "nature." Scientists, therefore, can be said to study the natural world. As they do so, they rely only on observations from this natural world in order to explain it, which is what we call "methodological naturalism." This is a key feature in the epistemology of the philosophy of science.

Mind-body dualism has been replaced in science with the idea of mind-body monism, due to observational and experimental data. The current model is that our minds are a product of processes generated within our brains. Our brains do not act as a receiver that picks up the brain from another metaphysical plane, either; they actively cause our minds through biochemical processes.

This means that all consciousness ceases at brain death. Our mind doesn't go anywhere. It stops. That means there is no afterlife for it to migrate to. Such an afterlife would be nomologically impossible and directly contradict current scientific models.

Methodological naturalism also means that there is no room in the history of evolution for any kind of divine intervention or supernatural guidance to have taken place. Luckily, it is entirely possible to explain the history of evolution without assuming the existence of God. In fact, it can be explained so thoroughly and coherently without God that God's involvement is vanishingly unlikely. There simply is no room for God in our understanding of evolution.

As such, claims that evolution was guided by the hand of God can only be taken metaphorically, not literally, if one is to maintain a scientifically consistent worldview. Some biologists go outside of their field of expertise to shift the goalposts by saying that God created the universe in such a way that human evolution would be inevitable. That is no longer theistic evolution, so it is not relevant to this conversation, but it does bring me to my next point.

Individual scientists are free to their own views. You will probably never find a scientist who is familiar with and positively affirms the scientific consensus on all topics in all fields. In fact, scientists that fully comprehend and apply the philosophy of science to their own thinking are quite rare. Scientists are only expected to practice methodological naturalism within the context of their professional career, which is usually contained within a small niche in their particular field of expertise. This allows people that are not scientific thinkers to make careers out of contributing to science, anyway, by setting aside their beliefs while conducting research and experimentation on a given topic.

That's a good thing, in my opinion, but it doesn't mean that all of their beliefs are compatible with science. I doubt that most of the theistic scientists you mention here would support the idea that science has demonstrated the existence of any god. They have to go outside of science and, honestly, directly contradict the naturalism and empiricism that science is founded on in order to claim the existence of God or the afterlife.

What I think is "utterly patronizing" is that well-read science communicators and philosophers of science have been aware of this since the 20th century but they don't want to antagonize popular religion. So they coin phrases like "non-overlapping magisteria," where they still don't admit that science is compatible with religion but instead try to redefine what religion is allowed to talk about, knowing that it will mislead people to believe that the two can be taken together. They do this because if they start challenging religious people's fundamental beliefs, there would be serious (and unnecessary) backlash against the academic sciences.

They avoid openly pointing out that God and the afterlife are incompatible with science because they don't think religious people are open to hearing it. Here's a quote from Eugenie Scott, who is one such science educator:

“Scientists can defuse some of the opposition to evolution by first recognizing that the vast majority of Americans are believers, and that most Americans want to retain their faith...individuals can retain religious beliefs and still accept evolution through methodological naturalism. Scientists should therefore avoid mentioning metaphysical naturalism and use methodological naturalism instead...Even someone who may disagree with my logic … often understands the strategic reasons for separating methodological from philosophical naturalism—if we want more Americans to understand evolution.”

Do you not find it more patronizing that these people are intentionally deceiving you about the compatibility of these ideas with science in order to spoon-feed you dumbed-down versions of specific scientific findings like evolution?

By contrast, I'm respecting the rationality of the people I'm speaking to. I think they deserve to know the truth. There is no God and there is no afterlife. Academia knows it. It's known for awhile now. The general public simply hasn't caught up yet.

 

[1213]

Exodus 21:20-21
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

That is not the same as saying it is ok to beat others. And actually it is not even only about slaves. There is no punishment for beating anyone in the Bible. But, it does not mean it is ok then, for example because it issaid, love your neighbor as yourself.

You still have to work anywhere amd everywhere regardless because no one likes a freeloader.

I have no problem with working, only if people must work as a slaves for others.

Yes, it is.

 

[1213]

But you don't believe in him either, as Jesus did not elevate money over people-- very much the contrary.

I don't elevate money over anything. I think people should be free, which is why I am against mandatory taxation. People who support mandatory taxation put money over people.

BTW, the Nordic Model was influenced by teachings in Lutheranism.

Funny thing is that many atheists in Finland want to see that Christianity has nothing to do with current system.

 

[1213]

You are not "forced". ... ...nothing is free.

Don't you think that is a contradiction?

 

[1213]

And how do you think that climate "hysteria" causes poorer people to buy or spend?

In the name of "climate change" people are forced to buy electric gas, replace their ovens with "more environmentally friendly" model... ...it is a clever scam to make people consume more, helps rich get richer.

...You've been listening to conservative indoctrination media, which aims to beat back the side of government that doesn't serve the wealthy. These people love government, but not when it helps YOU....

I have been watching how world works, governments serve only the rich, because they are sponsored by the rich.

For example climate change policy is made to increase profits of the rich people. Politicians give competition edge for the companies of the rich by "environmental" rules. Because of the rules, industry has moved for example into China, where it is cheaper, pollutes more and cares less about workers and increases the profits of the rich. All the climate rules have made things only worse for nature and people, but benefited greatly the rich. And it is no wonder, they were paid by the rich to do exactly what is the benefit of the rich.

It is sad that many people are hypnotized by the indoctrination media to believe all kind of crazy rules as a good deed for environment.

But, all though I think the war against carbon dioxide is ludicrous, I think it is good to care about nature. If we would really want to do that, the solutions would not be to buy more electric cars, long shipments from China, consuming more and more... ...people who really care about nature, don't consume unnecessarily, they repair old stuff and buy local products. But, that is obviously not good for the government, nor for the rich. They need more tax money, more profit. It is only possible if people are forced to buy more "environmentally friendly" products.

 

[1213]

Do you think you are one of these people? If so, explain how you behave that is how others should behave. Do you think Jesus taught to reject the work of experts, like scientists as you do? I accept climate change and evolution because experts in science have a high standard for ethics and honest reporting of results. Am I right or wrong according to your view of things?

I have not seen any evidence for scientists having high standard generally.

I don't think Jesus told, we should accept any lies, or ideas that are not well supported. And I think people should behave as Jesus told, love others as themselves. If one loves others, how could he demand money from them?

The hysteria? Are you talking about the people who are suffering in extreme heat? Those drowning in floods? Those whose houses are being torn apart in storms? Those crying over the loss of friends and family in Maui?

I don't think this year has been warmer than previous years. And I don't think those are because of "climate change". And for example the Maui fire, I believe it was arson, to grab the land of poorer people and to advance the climate scam.

But, I believe climate is changing, has been as long as earth has existed, and would do so, even if humans would not exist. It is ridiculous to believe carbon dioxide is be the problem, or that the problem would go away, if we just pay enough for government and buy enough electric cars.

What expert are you citing that says carbon isn't a problem?

Carbon is not a problem, because it is essential for plants to grow. At the moment the level of carbon dioxide is relatively low for plants. For example greenhouses buy carbon dioxide to get better harvest, because under 500 ppm is low for plants. People who want to lower the current level of carbon dioxide basically want famine.

An how does it make sense to buy more cars? If you had five cars you are still only driving one. Or do you mean you oppose people buying newer cars because they pollute less, and it's this that hurts the poor?

If people would use things as long as they last, it would pollute less than when people buy new ones unnecessarily. The manufacturing and shipping of electric cars is not environmentally friendly.

If that is your thinking notice no one has banned old, cheap cars. No one is being forced to buy a new car. New cars are being designed to meet emission standards set by the government to reduce pollutants, yet you have a problem with this? The reason government is being a good steward for the planet is because good people are electing these folks for government. You seem to have a bad attitude against government and ignore the good it does.

Sorry, I think they are evil and do nothing good.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not the same as saying it is ok to beat others. And actually it is not even only about slaves. There is no punishment for beating anyone in the Bible. But, it does not mean it is ok then, for example because it issaid, love your neighbor as yourself.

I have no problem with working, only if people must work as a slaves for others.

Being made to pay your fair share is not slavery. I do wish that people that use your foolish argument could be.forced into slavery for just one month.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In the name of "climate change" people are forced to buy electric gas

Did you mean electric cars? They're an appealing option. Friends of ours just got a Tesla and had a charging station installed in their garage, which is powered by solar panels. Now they pay nothing for electricity or gasoline. Our home is solar, too, but we're not ready for a new car.

replace their ovens with "more environmentally friendly" model

Forced? You need to stop listening to Fox News.

governments serve only the rich

Funny that you support the people who believe that government *IS* for the rich. But there is also a liberal element in government. Because of them, the American government also serves the poor and the middle class.

climate change policy is made to increase profits of the rich people.

Historically, yes, but Biden has made inroads there, and we're starting to see some sensible policy aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

It is sad that many people are hypnotized by the indoctrination media to believe all kind of crazy rules as a good deed for environment.

Fortunately, you've transcended that pitfall by listening to conservative media.

I think it is good to care about nature. If we would really want to do that, the solutions would not be to buy more electric cars, long shipments from China, consuming more and more

You have no solutions but to repair old items and consume less, which is no more a solution that when you tell that if everybody would just listen to Jesus and love one another, there's be no more war or killing. Good luck with that. The Baha'i have a similar platform: if everybody would just heed the word of their messenger, there's be world peace. Yeah, and if all of the atoms in my table spontaneously moved upward at once, the table would float.

people who really care about nature, don't consume unnecessarily

So what? There are obviously not enough of them to prevent climatological disaster. More ineffectual pipedream solutions.

They need more tax money, more profit. It is only possible if people are forced to buy more "environmentally friendly" products.

They're doing fine with the profits from your gasoline expenditures. What the petrochemical industry fears most is free power from the sun, wind, and moving water. No profit for them there.

It is ridiculous to believe carbon dioxide is be the problem

It's not the only greenhouse gas, but it's ridiculous to believe it's not a problem.

Carbon is not a problem, because it is essential for plants to grow.

So is water, but you can still be harmed by it (see floods, tsunamis). In fact, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.

People who want to lower the current level of carbon dioxide basically want famine.

Yet the CO2 levels have been lower throughout all of recorded human history, so you're wrong again.

I think they [governments] are evil and do nothing good.

That's the conservative indoctrination media you imbibed speaking through you. Remember, the people who tell you that don't really believe it themselves. Government is good when it taxes the middle class and spends public dollars exclusively on the needs and desires of the wealthy. Think about it. You've never heard these people telling calling for cuts in spending on the military, because they profit from huge defense contracts. It's the left doing that.

So if your home is destroyed by extreme weather, you won't have your hand out for a FEMA check? Is that correct? Since it would be evil of them to offer, it would be evil of you to accept. Are we in agreement on that? And you didn't cash your government Covid checks, right? Because that would be more government evil that you would be abetting.

People who support mandatory taxation put money over people.

No, people like you put money over people. People benefit from taxation and a commonwealth of infrastructure, but your interest is in keeping your money whatever the cost to society.

many atheists in Finland want to see that Christianity has nothing to do with current system.

Secularists everywhere want religion out of government. It has no place there.

 

[F1fan]

I have not seen any evidence for scientists having high standard generally.

Your own poor standard in the reason. You are heavily biased against science, as are many Christian extremists.

I don't think Jesus told, we should accept any lies, or ideas that are not well supported. And I think people should behave as Jesus told, love others as themselves. If one loves others, how could he demand money from them?

Creationists and Christian extremists lie to themselves, so think they are following Jesus.

I don't think this year has been warmer than previous years.

Again, your opinion is supposed to mean something when data is objective? All this reveals is your extreme bias against science, and even against data. Don't believe the thermometer, believe me. Absurd. We will believe the data and ignore science deniers.

And I don't think those are because of "climate change". And for example the Maui fire, I believe it was arson, to grab the land of poorer people and to advance the climate scam.

More of your irrelevant opinions. All this tells us is the degree of your denialism. It is very severe. It's frightening that humans are so deep in their religious dogma that they will work this hard to lie to themselves about real data and observations. You aren't even ashamed to admit these flaws on a public forum.

But, I believe climate is changing, has been as long as earth has existed, and would do so, even if humans would not exist. It is ridiculous to believe carbon dioxide is be the problem, or that the problem would go away, if we just pay enough for government and buy enough electric cars.

Again with your Duning-Kruger defect, which results in a false and irrelevant opinion that opposes what experts report.

Carbon is not a problem, because it is essential for plants to grow. At the moment the level of carbon dioxide is relatively low for plants. For example greenhouses buy carbon dioxide to get better harvest, because under 500 ppm is low for plants. People who want to lower the current level of carbon dioxide basically want famine.

This is direct disinformation that you are repeating. We've all heard this claim which is misleading.

If people would use things as long as they last, it would pollute less than when people buy new ones unnecessarily. The manufacturing and shipping of electric cars is not environmentally friendly.

Except your own right wing politics wants more consumerism so the economy stay strong. If you start cutting back on buying then we could face a recession, and then people lose jobs, and then more effects. I don't disagree with you, but your simplistic solutions, and blatant wrong opinions, are not real solutions to the many problems we face. Solutions need to be found, and then implemented in ways that don't cause too much disruption in how we live.

Sorry, I think they are evil and do nothing good.

Given your track record thus far I take it reality is that they are not evil and do good things.

 

[metis]

I don't elevate money over anything. I think people should be free, which is why I am against mandatory taxation.

IYO, should you be free to kill anyone you want? Should you be free to go to a store and just take what you want? Should you be free to take food away from a baby who's starving?

We live in a society that has rules, and if we just throw them out then all hell will likely break out.

IOW, your position literally makes no sense in a society as yours is based on self-centeredness.

People who support mandatory taxation put money over people.

Oh, gimme a break! That doesn't even remotely pass any smell test. Taxes can and do usually help others.

We're on the "internet", right? How did the internet get to be, 1213?

Funny thing is that many atheists in Finland want to see that Christianity has nothing to do with current system.

I know religious attendance there is about as low as it is in Sweden where many of my cousins live.

 

[SkepticThinker]

In the name of "climate change" people are forced to buy electric gas, replace their ovens with "more environmentally friendly" model... ...it is a clever scam to make people consume more, helps rich get richer.

Who is being "forced" to do anything? Did someone come to your home and put a gun to your head until you bought an environmentally friendly stove?

That is not the same as saying it is ok to beat others. And actually it is not even only about slaves. There is no punishment for beating anyone in the Bible. But, it does not mean it is ok then, for example because it issaid, love your neighbor as yourself.

I have no problem with working, only if people must work as a slaves for others.

It literally says it's okay to beat (non-Hebrew) slaves as long as they don't die within a few days.
And you say it doesn't say that. Okey dokey then. Can't beat that level of cognitive dissonance.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I have not seen any evidence for scientists having high standard generally.

I don't think Jesus told, we should accept any lies, or ideas that are not well supported. And I think people should behave as Jesus told, love others as themselves. If one loves others, how could he demand money from them?

I don't think this year has been warmer than previous years. And I don't think those are because of "climate change". And for example the Maui fire, I believe it was arson, to grab the land of poorer people and to advance the climate scam.

But, I believe climate is changing, has been as long as earth has existed, and would do so, even if humans would not exist. It is ridiculous to believe carbon dioxide is be the problem, or that the problem would go away, if we just pay enough for government and buy enough electric cars.

Carbon is not a problem, because it is essential for plants to grow. At the moment the level of carbon dioxide is relatively low for plants. For example greenhouses buy carbon dioxide to get better harvest, because under 500 ppm is low for plants. People who want to lower the current level of carbon dioxide basically want famine.

If people would use things as long as they last, it would pollute less than when people buy new ones unnecessarily. The manufacturing and shipping of electric cars is not environmentally friendly.

Sorry, I think they are evil and do nothing good.

Oh hey climatologists, this random dude on the internet thinks climate change is a good thing! But also that's it's not really happening. But it sorta is. And it's good. And some conspiracy theory or something.

Anything to avoid the evidence that's staring you right in the face.

 

[Muffled]

Democrats aren't big fans of the Constitution
either....except when it suits them. But MAGAs
differ in a highly significant way, ie, they're OK
with Trump trying to stage a coup.
There's nothing more unconstitutional than
to overthrow the federal government.

I believe the concept of a coup is pure fantasy devised by people who have a political agenda. I do believe the people have a right to know whether an election is legitimate or not but it was hopeless to think a Democrat congress cares about anything other than its own agenda.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the concept of a coup is pure fantasy devised by people who have a political agenda. I do believe the people have a right to know whether an election is legitimate or not but it was hopeless to think a Democrat congress cares about anything other than its own agenda.

I guess that you slept through January 6th.

 

[Muffled]

Going with the flow is easy and comforting. Ideals can be troublesome to hold to in a world that is less than ideal.

I believe not even Christians can totally agree on the ideals. I believe that is compounded by the fact that neither party reflects all of the ideals.

 

[Muffled]

I guess that you slept through January 6th.

If that was a coup then there should be some evidence of it but there is none.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If that was a coup then there should be some evidence of it but there is none.

Do you know what a strawman argument is?