A Theological Interlude

witherbane:

Most of the religious people I’ve greatly respected in my life have had a simple view on sin; namely, that all humans are equal in sin and therefore it makes no sense to claim to be better than a person because of bad moral choices they’ve made. All are redeemed in God in the end, anyways.

I love this position, and it’s certainly a lot better than the “(Rapists, terrorists, insert-morally-offensive group here) are irredeemable” narrative we see peddled in the media, and by the inflamed mob that is internet discourse. But I’ve decided that, even while respecting its merits, I must disagree.

[Read More]

I wrote this theological thought a short while ago for my personal, and thought I might share it here.

Twelve Thousand.

lov-eis-reason:

There are more than twelve thousand things I could write about for my twelve thousandth post. And what follows is what I have decided on.

Twelve millenia from now, will we remember the times we marginalized others? Will we recall how we impersonalized people by equating their human worth to their belief system?

Will we have changed twelve hundred decades from now? Or will we still treat others the same? Would the same things that appear to matter now, matter then? Money? Conformity? Popularity? “Normalcy”?

In twelve thousand years, will we have been reformed from our vilific ways? Will our hearts heal from one another’s malice?

Come one hundred fourty-four months in the future, what will be the norm of society? Will we finally be bound in love—which is the perfect bond of unity? Or will we have destroyed ourselves by that point?

When the sun rises and sets four million, three hundred eighty-three times more, do you think we will have accessed our ability to look past our own preconceptions of others? Will we be able to speak their language? Not just a language like Chinese or French. But a language like “scholar”, “layman”, “non-Christian burned by the Church”, or “Christian in love with the Church” and everything else.

What might happen one hundred five million, one hundred ninety-two thousand hours from now, if we decided to celebrate our differences today?

It’s a long way away, but every one of our words and actions carry meaning. And along with the meaning, the power to change—for better or worse.

Will you forgive me? I certainly forgive you. Some of you may think I am a wolf in sheep’s clothing. If, indeed, I am in love with destruction, will you forgive me for any cognitive distortions? Before your next heartbeat heartbeat, I forgive you.

Call me a non-believer or whatever you might. Maybe I am. And if I am, treat me with love. I don’t want your hell—you can keep it to yourself. Tell me about your life. What do you even do? What do/did you study? Who are your friends? Who even are you?

I’m never going to desire your beliefs if I have no clue at how it has impacted and impacts your life. Let me know you. An impersonal presentation of good news is not worth entertaining.

There was no good reason to hide this beautiful post behind a break.

  • Tumblr 2 yars ago: Dont celebrate Bin Ladens death its wrong and you should feel wrong you fascists.
  • Today: *Pops rozay* ayyy that ole bitch Thatcher dead bruh ayyyyyyyy *dougies* .
Normally these sorts of ignorant images are merely emotionally painful to read. Congratulations on creating one that is physically painful to read as well. This is a groundbreaking moment in #atheism.

Normally these sorts of ignorant images are merely emotionally painful to read. Congratulations on creating one that is physically painful to read as well. This is a groundbreaking moment in #atheism.

I swear if I read one more edgy atheist spout on about Dawkins' tea pot or the fucking Spaghetti Monster as if they're a holy beacon of logic and enlightenment I'm going to go insane. You're the only remotely atheist-centered blog I follow anymore because you actually have reasonable and valuable things to say instead of all that hackneyed bull shit.

I believe you mean Russell’s teapot, which is ironic, as it shows exactly how worn out these analogies are. They’re now being silently claimed, through repetition, by those who play the same unwanted roles of Russell and company in the religion debate. New age, same antagonism.

Thanks for the message!

thegodlessatheist:

Why is the burden to disprove god rests on atheists when theists have yet to prove there is a god? You can’t shove an ancient piece of poorly translated and easily discredited literature in our face and say this is the proof because it’s actually the claim. Faith is not proof either. It’s just a personal experience between the individual and their mind. Unlike having facts instead of having faith, you could still be wrong and in some cases downright delusional.
You can create anything in your mind and tell people to prove it doesn’t exist. For instance Bertrand’s famous teapot or the holy noodle the flying spaghetti monster. Prove to me there is not a teapot orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars? Just because you never seen the flying spaghetti monster does not mean it does not exist. This is how theists think. It’s ridiculous, irrational, illogical and unreasonable but it’s the atheists, secularists and scientists that are looked at as crackpots, lol? 

One of my favorite things on #atheism is when a blogger who mostly communicates through trite memes and “info”graphics decides they’re going to do a text post. It’s amazing to watch someone attempt to cobble together a new, informed analysis from the same edgy and pseudo-intellectual stuff they’ve been echoing for months. Argumentation through repetition. Logical reasoning through logical fallacy. It’s an incredible phenomenon, especially when coming from those who use “brainwashed” as a go-to insult.

thegodlessatheist:

Why is the burden to disprove god rests on atheists when theists have yet to prove there is a god? You can’t shove an ancient piece of poorly translated and easily discredited literature in our face and say this is the proof because it’s actually the claim. Faith is not proof either. It’s just a personal experience between the individual and their mind. Unlike having facts instead of having faith, you could still be wrong and in some cases downright delusional.

You can create anything in your mind and tell people to prove it doesn’t exist. For instance Bertrand’s famous teapot or the holy noodle the flying spaghetti monster. Prove to me there is not a teapot orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars? Just because you never seen the flying spaghetti monster does not mean it does not exist. This is how theists think. It’s ridiculous, irrational, illogical and unreasonable but it’s the atheists, secularists and scientists that are looked at as crackpots, lol? 

One of my favorite things on #atheism is when a blogger who mostly communicates through trite memes and “info”graphics decides they’re going to do a text post. It’s amazing to watch someone attempt to cobble together a new, informed analysis from the same edgy and pseudo-intellectual stuff they’ve been echoing for months. Argumentation through repetition. Logical reasoning through logical fallacy. It’s an incredible phenomenon, especially when coming from those who use “brainwashed” as a go-to insult.