4 ms·

No, I’m sorry but you clearly don’t have much knowledge of Christianity or religion in general. As is usual with the vocal atheist crowd, unfortunately. None of

No, I’m sorry but you clearly don’t have much knowledge of Christianity or religion in general. As is usual with the vocal atheist crowd, unfortunately. None of what you said or linked to is the mainstream or even acceptable fringe of Christian thought. As I said above, your understanding of these issues is very lacking. Even if one were to assume your ignorant argument is true, it’s also not really relevant. The fact that God is a “King” doesn’t somehow confer the same properties onto human kings or governments. Again, basic theology 101 here. These are quite interesting topics but the level of discussion (exemplified by your remarks here) is often at such a low level, it’s kind of embarrassing, honestly.

Geminidog 6y ago
>No, I’m sorry but you clearly don’t have much knowledge of Christianity or religion in general. And you clearly don't know my background. I may be atheist now but I wasn't in the past. Also there is no need to disparage an entire demographic as you just did to atheists. I have said nothing negative or insulting about Christians, so I humbly request you do the same. Either way we're not debating the validity of your religion here, we are discussing a specific point. >Even if one were to assume your ignorant argument is true, it’s also not really relevant. The fact that God is a “King” doesn’t somehow confer the same properties onto human kings or governments. Again, basic theology 101 here. And how is this statement relevant? Did I say God being "king" confers the same properties onto human kings? No I didn't. Again, basic English 101 here, if I didn't say something no need to argue against it. What I did say is god is an example of a dictatorship because it fits the definition of the word. https://www.wordreference.com/definition/dictatorship https://www.wordreference.com/definition/dictatorship Colloquially, as referenced in the source above, the definition of the non-government usage of the word "dictatorship" is "absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control" which is an apt description of Gods dominion over reality. >These are quite interesting topics but the level of discussion (exemplified by your remarks here) is often at such a low level, it’s kind of embarrassing, honestly. One thing that's not very christian is to insult others and to call them "embarrassing." You've been calling me ignorant throughout this conversation. It's obviously done for the purposes of being insulting because in normal human interactions nobody will disparage another party for being stupid, embarrassing or ignorant even if they believe those qualities are true. From this logic it can only be concluded that your remarks are actually deliberate and targeted insults. Very unchristian-like, given that I've only called you "ignorant" as a retaliation. The christian thing for you to do is to apologize. “And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. You have heard that it is said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Matthew 5:40-43 ESV Given that I've done nothing to take advantage of you, the proverb above is an even greater reason why you should walk two miles with me and to stop with the deliberate insults. You are obligated to continue the discussion in a way that is more christian-like. >None of what you said or linked to is the mainstream or even acceptable fringe of Christian thought. What I did to get those resources is I googled "God is king" then I randomly selected sources from the top results. So basically what happened here is google's selection algorithm (which conventionally chooses the most popular results) obviously is buggy and delivered me many fringe results along with mainstream ones. This along with my random selection of sources by happenstance also avoided results that were mainstream. I'm serious, this is categorically a possibility and is, according to your observations, unequivocally what occurred here. What will be definitive and completely possible is you finding me the same amount of sources from better mainstream christian sources to prove your point. Logically if what you say is true, your sources should be easier to find then how I found mine. Obviously you should avoid google, as the algorithm is buggy. I suggest you use duck duck go and some other search term that will get you what you want. Also I would say 5 different sources citing your point, along with the search term and the search engine you used to find those sources will help me verify how mainstream your point is, because clearly it is unlikely for both google and another search engine to both be buggy and by happenstance deliver fringe results. In short, your point here is that god is not a "king" or a "dictator" even though the bible has a quote directly saying he is "king". It's quite possible that mainstream christian thought has come up with some other symbolic definition of the word "king" to make the religion more compatible with modern society. I however have not seen ANY sources for that possibility but you are claiming that not only have you seen resources for it, it is mainstream christian belief. Prove it then. Now that I laid it all out... give me your sources or give me your excuses. Choose.
- ceilingcorner 6y ago
  It’s not my job to do your research for you. A religion is the cumulative result of thousands of years of culture and thought. Googling some random Biblical phrases isn’t really much of an argument...especially considering that a majority of Christians look more to the church or to tradition than the Bible itself. Again, basic theology. Likewise with the notion that God "wills" everything: this is called "the problem of free will" and millenia of books have been written about it. And again, God is not a dictator because a dictator is a human concept derived from the Roman republic. The comparison to religious entities is nonsensical. As I’ve said a few times now, anyone with basic knowledge of theology would know this. You can’t expect to google something and get a clear, understandable answer in five minutes. It doesn’t work that way with something as all-permeating as the influence and definition of religion. There are literally thousands of scholars that have written books on these topics. I said "vocal atheists" above because this is a common habit of that community: the assumption that if something can't be argued for by assembling a bunch of google results, it must clearly be nonsense. Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way. Finally, I’m not a Christian and never have been. I just find the constant ignorance of religion to be tiresome. Anyone who had spent considerable time studying Christianity or other religions would immediately recognize that you have a very confused understanding of them both. My initial comment was just calling you out for it. I suggest starting here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Geminidog 6y ago
    >A religion is the cumulative result of thousands of years of culture and thought. Googling some random Biblical phrases isn’t really much of an argument...especially considering that a majority of Christians look more to the church or to tradition than the Bible itself. Whether the result is derived from 10,000 hours of research or 5 minutes of googling is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the veracity of the main point. For example if I google the statistics about the population within the united states, I receive the result in seconds, the speed in which I found the results has nothing to do with the accuracy of the results. The method to prove sources wrong is to offer counter sources. Not to declare it invalid because it came from google. > especially considering that a majority of Christians look more to the church or to tradition than the Bible itself. When people refer to Christians they don't refer to the bible or some religious document they refer to the people representing the religion as a whole, aka "the majority of Christians." Such was what I was referring to. Thus by your own logic are you admitting that the "majority of Christians" believe god is king/dictator? If so there is no validity in calling me ignorant as you are specifically slicing the definition of christian to refer to a specific interpretation of the bible. >And again, God is not a dictator because a dictator is a human concept derived from the Roman republic. How does the etymology of a word have to do with anything? The arena for this discussion is not an anthropology or linguistics class, the arena of discussion is the internet therefore only the colloquial definition of "dictator" applies. Again I googled a source and cited it as the definition of the word "dictator" and that definition applies to my point. >I said "vocal atheists" above because this is a common habit of that community: the assumption that if something can't be argued for by assembling a bunch of google results, it must clearly be nonsense. This is an insult to an entire demographic of people with differing beliefs. Why? Because no reasonable person believes that being unable to assemble an argument in 5 minutes means that the argument is invalid. Any reasonable person knows this. Therefore, for you to declare this as true for an entire demographic is an deliberate and targeted insult. Very unchristian like. If you can't assemble an argument using google results then that simply means you can't construct an argument given the time frame and context and that you have failed to convince me and anyone reading this about the validity of your arguments. It doesn't mean your argument is not true, nobody on earth believes this. We all know that every argument is subject to disproof at any time. There is no need do disparage an entire demographic just because you can't articulate your argument at this point in time. >Finally, I’m not a Christian and never have been. I just find the constant ignorance of religion to be tiresome. Anyone who had spent considerable time studying Christianity or other religions would immediately recognize that you have a very confused understanding of them both. My initial comment was just calling you out for it. You're obviously not an atheist. Given these statements, my guess is that you're either part of some other Judaic sect or you just believe in your own interpretation of the bible. What you are and your interpretation of the bible is irrelevant because my comment was directed at "the majority of Christians." Your argument seems to be coming from a different angle that is off topic. Also you cite a bunch of sources from the Standford encyclopedia of philosophy. I would argue that the Standford encyclopedia of philosophy is a bad source for the topic at hand. Standford is an academic institution where many researchers tend to believe in the scientific method over the faith based tenets of Christians. Such contradictory tenets make it a shaky source. When asking the question: What do the "majority of Christians" believe in? .... the academic institution of Stanford is a biased source. Instead of asking Stanford, it's better to directly ask "the majority of Christians" instead. Additionally philosophy is sort of an objective look at the religion and trying to codify all the concepts, contradictions and connections into universal vocabulary. This is not the point of my argument. The point of my example is what people in the world actually believe. And It very much looks like "The Majority of Christians" believe god is king. Your best bet here to convince me and other people reading is to find some document that examines the definition of the word "king" and "lord" within this proverb: "He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. . . . On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords." -Revelation 19:13, 16 Basically if you can prove that Christianity reinterprets the word "lord" and "king" to mean something other than the colloquial definition of the term "dictatorship" and that the "majority of Christians" believe that definition then you're right. Religion and many human mythological beliefs are not immune to contradiction so arguing for some contradictory theological concept won't exactly prove anything if you still have millions of Christians chanting "God is king" at church every Sunday. Christians can believe god is a dictator at the same time they can also believe in freewill, such is the fallacy of human thinking. But don't all dictators grant their subjects free will anyway? "You're free to oppose me but then I'll execute you (make you burn in hell)." If you fail to respond with anything substantial it could be because of what you said: It's not your job to do research for me or other readers of HN. Other readers of HN and I will of course consider this as a possibility, but of course we will also consider the possibility that you can't find anything substantial because you know you're wrong.

Geminidog 6y ago

>No, I’m sorry but you clearly don’t have much knowledge of Christianity or religion in general. And you clearly don't know my background. I may be atheist now but I wasn't in the past. Also there is no need to disparage an entire demographic as you just did to atheists. I have said nothing negative or insulting about Christians, so I humbly request you do the same. Either way we're not debating the validity of your religion here, we are discussing a specific point. >Even if one were to assume your ignorant argument is true, it’s also not really relevant. The fact that God is a “King” doesn’t somehow confer the same properties onto human kings or governments. Again, basic theology 101 here. And how is this statement relevant? Did I say God being "king" confers the same properties onto human kings? No I didn't. Again, basic English 101 here, if I didn't say something no need to argue against it. What I did say is god is an example of a dictatorship because it fits the definition of the word. https://www.wordreference.com/definition/dictatorship https://www.wordreference.com/definition/dictatorship Colloquially, as referenced in the source above, the definition of the non-government usage of the word "dictatorship" is "absolute, imperious, or overbearing power or control" which is an apt description of Gods dominion over reality. >These are quite interesting topics but the level of discussion (exemplified by your remarks here) is often at such a low level, it’s kind of embarrassing, honestly. One thing that's not very christian is to insult others and to call them "embarrassing." You've been calling me ignorant throughout this conversation. It's obviously done for the purposes of being insulting because in normal human interactions nobody will disparage another party for being stupid, embarrassing or ignorant even if they believe those qualities are true. From this logic it can only be concluded that your remarks are actually deliberate and targeted insults. Very unchristian-like, given that I've only called you "ignorant" as a retaliation. The christian thing for you to do is to apologize. “And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. You have heard that it is said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.” Matthew 5:40-43 ESV Given that I've done nothing to take advantage of you, the proverb above is an even greater reason why you should walk two miles with me and to stop with the deliberate insults. You are obligated to continue the discussion in a way that is more christian-like. >None of what you said or linked to is the mainstream or even acceptable fringe of Christian thought. What I did to get those resources is I googled "God is king" then I randomly selected sources from the top results. So basically what happened here is google's selection algorithm (which conventionally chooses the most popular results) obviously is buggy and delivered me many fringe results along with mainstream ones. This along with my random selection of sources by happenstance also avoided results that were mainstream. I'm serious, this is categorically a possibility and is, according to your observations, unequivocally what occurred here. What will be definitive and completely possible is you finding me the same amount of sources from better mainstream christian sources to prove your point. Logically if what you say is true, your sources should be easier to find then how I found mine. Obviously you should avoid google, as the algorithm is buggy. I suggest you use duck duck go and some other search term that will get you what you want. Also I would say 5 different sources citing your point, along with the search term and the search engine you used to find those sources will help me verify how mainstream your point is, because clearly it is unlikely for both google and another search engine to both be buggy and by happenstance deliver fringe results. In short, your point here is that god is not a "king" or a "dictator" even though the bible has a quote directly saying he is "king". It's quite possible that mainstream christian thought has come up with some other symbolic definition of the word "king" to make the religion more compatible with modern society. I however have not seen ANY sources for that possibility but you are claiming that not only have you seen resources for it, it is mainstream christian belief. Prove it then. Now that I laid it all out... give me your sources or give me your excuses. Choose.

ceilingcorner 6y ago
It’s not my job to do your research for you. A religion is the cumulative result of thousands of years of culture and thought. Googling some random Biblical phrases isn’t really much of an argument...especially considering that a majority of Christians look more to the church or to tradition than the Bible itself. Again, basic theology. Likewise with the notion that God "wills" everything: this is called "the problem of free will" and millenia of books have been written about it. And again, God is not a dictator because a dictator is a human concept derived from the Roman republic. The comparison to religious entities is nonsensical. As I’ve said a few times now, anyone with basic knowledge of theology would know this. You can’t expect to google something and get a clear, understandable answer in five minutes. It doesn’t work that way with something as all-permeating as the influence and definition of religion. There are literally thousands of scholars that have written books on these topics. I said "vocal atheists" above because this is a common habit of that community: the assumption that if something can't be argued for by assembling a bunch of google results, it must clearly be nonsense. Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way. Finally, I’m not a Christian and never have been. I just find the constant ignorance of religion to be tiresome. Anyone who had spent considerable time studying Christianity or other religions would immediately recognize that you have a very confused understanding of them both. My initial comment was just calling you out for it. I suggest starting here: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freewill/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/divine-hiddenness/
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Geminidog 6y ago
  >A religion is the cumulative result of thousands of years of culture and thought. Googling some random Biblical phrases isn’t really much of an argument...especially considering that a majority of Christians look more to the church or to tradition than the Bible itself. Whether the result is derived from 10,000 hours of research or 5 minutes of googling is irrelevant and has nothing to do with the veracity of the main point. For example if I google the statistics about the population within the united states, I receive the result in seconds, the speed in which I found the results has nothing to do with the accuracy of the results. The method to prove sources wrong is to offer counter sources. Not to declare it invalid because it came from google. > especially considering that a majority of Christians look more to the church or to tradition than the Bible itself. When people refer to Christians they don't refer to the bible or some religious document they refer to the people representing the religion as a whole, aka "the majority of Christians." Such was what I was referring to. Thus by your own logic are you admitting that the "majority of Christians" believe god is king/dictator? If so there is no validity in calling me ignorant as you are specifically slicing the definition of christian to refer to a specific interpretation of the bible. >And again, God is not a dictator because a dictator is a human concept derived from the Roman republic. How does the etymology of a word have to do with anything? The arena for this discussion is not an anthropology or linguistics class, the arena of discussion is the internet therefore only the colloquial definition of "dictator" applies. Again I googled a source and cited it as the definition of the word "dictator" and that definition applies to my point. >I said "vocal atheists" above because this is a common habit of that community: the assumption that if something can't be argued for by assembling a bunch of google results, it must clearly be nonsense. This is an insult to an entire demographic of people with differing beliefs. Why? Because no reasonable person believes that being unable to assemble an argument in 5 minutes means that the argument is invalid. Any reasonable person knows this. Therefore, for you to declare this as true for an entire demographic is an deliberate and targeted insult. Very unchristian like. If you can't assemble an argument using google results then that simply means you can't construct an argument given the time frame and context and that you have failed to convince me and anyone reading this about the validity of your arguments. It doesn't mean your argument is not true, nobody on earth believes this. We all know that every argument is subject to disproof at any time. There is no need do disparage an entire demographic just because you can't articulate your argument at this point in time. >Finally, I’m not a Christian and never have been. I just find the constant ignorance of religion to be tiresome. Anyone who had spent considerable time studying Christianity or other religions would immediately recognize that you have a very confused understanding of them both. My initial comment was just calling you out for it. You're obviously not an atheist. Given these statements, my guess is that you're either part of some other Judaic sect or you just believe in your own interpretation of the bible. What you are and your interpretation of the bible is irrelevant because my comment was directed at "the majority of Christians." Your argument seems to be coming from a different angle that is off topic. Also you cite a bunch of sources from the Standford encyclopedia of philosophy. I would argue that the Standford encyclopedia of philosophy is a bad source for the topic at hand. Standford is an academic institution where many researchers tend to believe in the scientific method over the faith based tenets of Christians. Such contradictory tenets make it a shaky source. When asking the question: What do the "majority of Christians" believe in? .... the academic institution of Stanford is a biased source. Instead of asking Stanford, it's better to directly ask "the majority of Christians" instead. Additionally philosophy is sort of an objective look at the religion and trying to codify all the concepts, contradictions and connections into universal vocabulary. This is not the point of my argument. The point of my example is what people in the world actually believe. And It very much looks like "The Majority of Christians" believe god is king. Your best bet here to convince me and other people reading is to find some document that examines the definition of the word "king" and "lord" within this proverb: "He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. . . . On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords." -Revelation 19:13, 16 Basically if you can prove that Christianity reinterprets the word "lord" and "king" to mean something other than the colloquial definition of the term "dictatorship" and that the "majority of Christians" believe that definition then you're right. Religion and many human mythological beliefs are not immune to contradiction so arguing for some contradictory theological concept won't exactly prove anything if you still have millions of Christians chanting "God is king" at church every Sunday. Christians can believe god is a dictator at the same time they can also believe in freewill, such is the fallacy of human thinking. But don't all dictators grant their subjects free will anyway? "You're free to oppose me but then I'll execute you (make you burn in hell)." If you fail to respond with anything substantial it could be because of what you said: It's not your job to do research for me or other readers of HN. Other readers of HN and I will of course consider this as a possibility, but of course we will also consider the possibility that you can't find anything substantial because you know you're wrong.