Curt Doolittle

Category: Religion, Myth, and Theology

  • Moral authority to punish or kill speakers of untruths will be the most importan

    Moral authority to punish or kill speakers of untruths will be the most important reformation of religion since the protestant reformation.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-14 08:02:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-gods-punishment-society-spread-20160210-story.htmlEXACTLY.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-11 16:36:00 UTC

  • Q: How Can You Prove Monotheism Wrong?

    Note: the O’henry ending is that given the alternatives why would you claim monotheism was not wrong except for immoral ends?

    How can you prove monotheism wrong, Mr. Doolittle?

    [W]ell that depends upon your concept of Gods. If you say that there is one set of optimum laws of man and nature then I would agree that this is truth and truth and God are synonyms. If you say that we seek to find an anthropomorphic representation of those laws which man can seek to achieve, aspire to imitate, or at least obey, then I would agree with that. If you say that there exists one God then that is demonstrably false. Since clearly many exist and have existed, and most are incompatible. If you say that there exists a supernatural entity in the universe with sentience and will that is not a construct of man and mans minds then I would question your reasoning. It is not for me to prove one God is false. Since I clearly advocate the first and second principles above. It is instead am a question of why those who say otherwise do so? In other words if there is some thing that violates that truth, natural and physical laws then it either is not God, or it is the work of men trying to deceive us. So my response is that since I try to act in accordance with laws that man cannot use for deceptive purposes, why would you or others seek to advocate that which is not compatible with truth, natural and physical law, except to do so for deceptive purposes, or because you are pawns if that which is not God?

  • Q: How Can You Prove Monotheism Wrong?

    Note: the O’henry ending is that given the alternatives why would you claim monotheism was not wrong except for immoral ends?

    How can you prove monotheism wrong, Mr. Doolittle?

    [W]ell that depends upon your concept of Gods. If you say that there is one set of optimum laws of man and nature then I would agree that this is truth and truth and God are synonyms. If you say that we seek to find an anthropomorphic representation of those laws which man can seek to achieve, aspire to imitate, or at least obey, then I would agree with that. If you say that there exists one God then that is demonstrably false. Since clearly many exist and have existed, and most are incompatible. If you say that there exists a supernatural entity in the universe with sentience and will that is not a construct of man and mans minds then I would question your reasoning. It is not for me to prove one God is false. Since I clearly advocate the first and second principles above. It is instead am a question of why those who say otherwise do so? In other words if there is some thing that violates that truth, natural and physical laws then it either is not God, or it is the work of men trying to deceive us. So my response is that since I try to act in accordance with laws that man cannot use for deceptive purposes, why would you or others seek to advocate that which is not compatible with truth, natural and physical law, except to do so for deceptive purposes, or because you are pawns if that which is not God?

  • You want to name a true God. I want to kill false gods so that only true God rem

    You want to name a true God.

    I want to kill false gods so that only true God remains.

    That is the difference between devout Christianity and the Christianity of Testimonial Truth.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-02 08:34:00 UTC

  • What makes one a Christian is not what he believes but what he does not believe:

    What makes one a Christian is not what he believes but what he does not believe: other majority religions.

    What makes one a member of the right is that he does not believe in the moral claims of the left.

    NRX does not believe that democracy is possible.

    The alt right does not believe that reconciliation or compromise is possible.

    In my work I do not believe that anarchy is possible, that the institutions of the past are recoverable, or that consensus building is possible without escalation to insurrection.

    Everything positive one advocates or believes is a mere theory among bedfellows of disbelief.

    The particular dream we each have is irrelevant. It is that which we no longer believe is possible that forms these movements.

    Why?

    A lack of innovative solutions.

    People diversify and embrace the questionable for the simple reason that they have nothing positive to rally around.

    Hence why we work on substantive solutions while the extremists rail at the heavens.

    So this criticism while true does not matter because it criticizes the obvious: desperate claims given the absence of achieve able goals.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-26 14:02:00 UTC

  • The Third Principle of Freedom of Religion is accountability. That is, that all

    The Third Principle of Freedom of Religion is accountability. That is, that all members of any faith are responsible for the heresies within that faith. Ergo, if your faith has members that violate natural law, reciprocity, or accountability then, this religion is by definition not a right, and does not protect fundamental rights.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 13:58:00 UTC

  • RELIGION I have been working on the subject for much of this year, and today has

    RELIGION

    I have been working on the subject for much of this year, and today has been very fruitful.

    The church was very close. It could have reformed. Sad.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 06:49:00 UTC

  • I am not sure atheism is not a religion. Activist atheism appears to be. Agnosti

    I am not sure atheism is not a religion. Activist atheism appears to be. Agnosticism is not.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 17:50:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690592366240079872

    Reply addressees: @kamijane29 @Heritage

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690563111124865024

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690563111124865024

  • MOST VIOLENT PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS IN MODERN HISTORY

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/20/report-2015-saw-most-violent-persecution-of-christians-in-modern-history/THE MOST VIOLENT PERSECUTION OF CHRISTIANS IN MODERN HISTORY

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-21 03:07:00 UTC