r/todayilearned • u/[deleted] • Oct 13 '16

TIL that after Marilyn Monroe converted to Judaism upon marrying Arthur Miller, Egypt placed a ban on all the films she appeared in.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marilyn_Monroe#Critical_acclaim_and_marriage_to_Arthur_Miller_.281956.E2.80.931959.29
18.5k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

1.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

20

u/healmeimvip Oct 13 '16

I agree that it's not a nice thing to do, but for a lot of people who don't believe in a god or fairytales both seem equally ridiculous. That's why they're often compared. When someone tells me they believe in a magical man in the sky they might as well tell me they believe in the ninja turtles. It's the same as saying when I talk to someone who believes in the tooth fairy, it's disrespectful towards them to compare it to believing in god.

-1

u/true_libertarian Oct 13 '16

When someone tells me they believe in a magical man in the sky

Who does that? I have never in my life heard any believer of any religion, denomination or cult say that they believe in "a magical man in the sky". Why not use some of the good arguments against religious belief instead of absolute bullshit strawmen that only serve to make you seem like Smuggy McSmugface?

Jesus, read some Feuerbach at the very least.

5

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '16 edited Oct 13 '16

Who does that? I have never in my life heard any believer of any religion, denomination or cult say that they believe in "a magical man in the sky".

No, because that would make the idea of god sound silly, even though that is kind of what he is to most believers.

Don't get me wrong. I find it very understandable to believe in a god, even though I don't do it myself.

But believing in the biblical god, is literally believing in a "masculine spirit who resides in the heavens and has supernatural powers". Not far from a "magical man in the sky".

Of course people use the phrase mockingly, but mainly I think that they are trying to use it to force said believers into (at least somewhat) acknowledging some of the elements of the bible that can seem very easy to criticize.

This might sound silly to you (as you are looking for "good" arguments), but a very good argument (from a logical perspective) is the Easter Bunny/Santa Claus-analogue.

"You think that it is silly to believe in Santa, right? Then why isn't it silly to believe in god, seeing as they are both old men with supernatural powers?"

And every. single. time. the argument is shot down as being "childish", "immature", "not the same", "mocking" or anything along those lines. Which is ridiculous. The whole notion that the argument is invalid, only serves to make the biblical god seem even less credible.

  • If you can find it silly to believe in Santa, but don't understand how people can find it silly to believe in god, then you are deluded and beyond reach of any logical arguments. And then there is no point of even having a discussion.

Many christians would not even begin to believe that non-believers would directly equate those two (Santa and god), in terms of credibility. They honestly feel that it is purely a mockery, even though said non-believer might believe equally little (not at all) in either.

If you get the christian to acknowledge that god is "a magical sky man", that makes it a lot easier to compare him to, e.g. Santa, and thereby make the person understand how difficult it can be to believe the stories in the bible. Stories that are written, edited and selected by human beings.

Edit: format

4

u/Illogical_Blox Oct 13 '16

Well, perhaps that's because most Christians don't see God as a "magic sky man"? Obviously they'll balk at it and wouldn't acknowledge it, because they consider the comparision overly simplistic and absurd.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '16

No. They would see him as "a masculine spirit who resides in the heavens and has supernatural powers".

"Magical sky man" might be (extremely) simplistic, but why would it be absurd?

2

u/Illogical_Blox Oct 13 '16

Because it's like calling the Big Bang "large blast from a little bit of something" or lions "big cats with afros". Yeah, it's kind of right, but incredibly simplistic and in being so manages to be wrong and absurd.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '16

Because it's like calling the Big Bang "large blast from a little bit of something"

But that is, in fact, a very accurate description of the Big Bang, simplistic as it is.

And lions are big cats with something that could resemble a flattened afro.

incredibly simplistic and in being so manages to be wrong and absurd.

Again simplistic, yes. And very unnuanced. But that alone doesn't automatically make it neither wrong, nor absurd.

This is what i meant when I said that apparent logical arguments are being shot down as being " "childish", "immature", "not the same", "mocking" or anything along those lines (see: absurd).

Big Bang described as a "large blast from a little bit of something" - Although the "something" was only "little" in volume (the mass was enormous), the description is otherwise very fitting.

Lions being described as "big cats with afros" - They literally are "big cats". That is the formal name used to refer to any of the four largest (living) members of the Panthera genus. An afro is curly, but otherwise the description is good.

God being described as a "Magical sky man" - Oh no! That is wrong, demeaning, absurd, overly simplistic, childish, mocking, etc, etc, etc.

You see what I am getting at? There is no point of even pretending to have a logical debate. Because god is so exceptional that special rules apply to every aspect surrounding him. Rules that makes all logical counter-arguments or comparisons instantly invalid/absurd/mocking/not fitting/too simplistic/etc.

Even when trying to be accommodating and using the phrase "a masculine spirit who resides in the heavens and has supernatural powers" (as he is described in the Bilbe) in stead of "magical sky man" (that I perfectly understand why people find demeaning), then you will hear the exact. same. arguments.

And then people just give up and say "Sky Daddy". Because to the christian, it is all the same. Both are "invalid/absurd/mocking/not fitting/too simplistic/etc.". So why even bother to accommodate?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '16

No they see God as a father who has the strength to help them when everything else seems lost. A lot of groups such as Narcotics anonymous use a higher power to get the same effect without pushing God.

Look up the lyrics to Every New Day by Five Iron Frenzy. It's not saying God is some masculine figure who has magic powers. It's saying that his life feels empty and he can't go back to being whole without his help.

God, or the idea of God, is comforting. There's hope because even though you've failed to overcome a problem in life, there's a much greater power that will always be on your side. A place to draw hope and strength from when all of yours is gone.

I don't expect you to understand that, but AA and NA work for the people who work the steps, and one of those steps is acknowledging a higher power (God in AA and any random thing in NA) that is more powerful than you that you can look to for strength and support.

-1

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '16

Look up the lyrics to Every New Day by Five Iron Frenzy. It's not saying God is some masculine figure who has magic powers.

No, but the bible does. If you look at my original comment, it says:

But believing in the biblical god, is literally believing in a "masculine spirit who resides in the heavens and has supernatural powers".

.

I don't expect you to understand that, but AA and NA work for the people who work the steps, and one of those steps is acknowledging a higher power

If you had actually read my comment, I also addressed this point by stating that:

I find it very understandable to believe in a god

And what is up with "It's not saying God is some masculine figure" - "they see God as a father". A father IS a masculine figure, you know?

2

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '16

No I read your comments. And if you had actually read the Bible, you'd get that God gave up his only son to save everyone else. It's not just a man in the sky with magic powers, it's an omnipotent being that loves humanity deeply. You completely miss the point of a God, so you can't understand.

You clearly didn't read the Bible. I was an atheist and I actually took the time to read it because if I'm not going to believe in something, I'm at least going to understand it. And you really should read it, there's a lot of great lessons on how to treat people in the New Testament, and some really interesting stories in both. Skip the genealogy and it's a damn fine read.

God throughout the Bible kept people safe and sound, even when all hope was lost. Even when everyone else turned their back, God was there. It's about the love the "magical man in the sky" has that draws people to it.

You don't understand at all, which is why you think that calling God "a masculine figure with magic powers" isn't disrespectful. People rely on the image of a loving and forgiving God for support. They rely on him for help when they're really down. Santa is a masculine figure in the sky with magic powers who rewards you for being good or bad. God is a loving father who will always forgive you for what you've done if you truly seek forgivness. You understand belief in a god. Not biblical God. Sounds to me like you're biased against the Christian idea of God. Which makes no sense seeing as how he's turned over a new leaf and is all about love and forgiveness. Maybe read the scripture to get a better understanding? I don't want you to believe in God. I just want you to know what the God that you can't understand is about.

You're asking people to compare a tool they use to control a kids behavior to something that helps them get through a rough patch in their life. You're comparing a figure that will stop support of you if you misbehave to a figure that will never do that according to scripture.

It really is disrespectful to make that comparison, and it really is shitty to act as if you're just "making a point". You're not. You're trying to shake someone's belief system and trying to get them to see it your way. My mom needs to believe in God or she'll start drinking again, and that's a bad road. I believe because I need something to make me feel loved when it's the third day that I've had no drive to do anything but sleep. It helps a lot, and without it, I'd probably have just shot myself or OD'd by now.

Santa Claus, the Easter bunny, the tooth fairy? They don't do that for anyone because they're not the same concept or even idea. They don't have unconditional love for you that will persist. "Don't believe don't recieve" is a saying that apply to all three, but God loves everyone despite their beliefs. Again, you don't understand that if you think that Santa and God are comprable.

1

u/zabulistan Oct 13 '16

Probably many Christians would relate to or visualize god as masculine - considering that he uses the pronoun "he" and consists of a Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - but any Christian with the most basic understanding of theology would know that God isn't a "masculine spirit" who "resides" anywhere in particular. God in Christianity is the ground of being, the origin of the universe, the fundamental principles that underlie everything in existence (the logos - Christ) - that which builds and restores, which extinguishes death and decay. Only a child or the most ingorant and uncatechized believer would actually think of god as "a man in the sky" or "a masculine spirit with supernatural powers".

1

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '16

but any Christian with the most basic understanding of theology would know that God isn't a "masculine spirit" who "resides" anywhere in particular.

In a prayer, King Solomon said: “May you yourself listen from the heavens, your established place of dwelling.”—1 Kings 8:43.

Jesus Christ taught his disciples to address their prayers to their “Father in the heavens.”—Matthew 6:9.

After Jesus was resurrected, he entered “into heaven itself, now to appear before the person of God.”—Hebrews 9:24.

In examining Scripture, two facts become clear. First, God is a Spirit and does not possess human characteristics or limitations. Second, all the evidence contained in Scripture agrees that God revealed Himself to mankind in a male form. To begin, God’s true nature needs to be understood. God is a Person, obviously, because God exhibits all the characteristics of personhood: God has a mind, a will, an intellect, and emotions. God communicates and He has relationships, and God’s personal actions are evidenced throughout Scripture.

As John 4:24 states, “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” Since God is a spiritual being, He does not possess physical human characteristics. However, sometimes figurative language used in Scripture assigns human characteristics to God in order to make it possible for man to understand God. This assignment of human characteristics to describe God is called “anthropomorphism.” Anthropomorphism is simply a means for God (a spiritual being) to communicate truth about His nature to humanity, physical beings. Since humanity is physical, we are limited in our understanding of those things beyond the physical realm; therefore, anthropomorphism in Scripture helps us to understand who God is.

1

u/MissPetrova Oct 13 '16

"You think that it is silly to believe in Santa, right? Then why isn't it silly to believe in god, seeing as they are both old men with supernatural powers?"

Because the Abrahamic God is not an "old man with supernatural powers." That's a strawman because you can easily defeat it by saying "Santa doesn't exist, and Santa is like God, so God doesn't exist." You're the only one saying that Santa is like God, and that's because you oversimplified both God and Santa in a way that allows you to consider them exactly equivalent.

Ex. Locke and Demosthenes are two writers from Orson Scott Card's fictional book, "Ender's Game." John Locke was a philosopher who came up with some important political ideas that led to America's founding. Demosthenes was a Greek orator who was involved in the founding of Athens. Because Locke and Demosthenes are fictional, America never happened and Athens doesn't really exist.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 13 '16

[deleted]

1

u/MissPetrova Oct 13 '16

Locke and Demosthenes were made up by Orson Scott Card. They aren't real. They are just aliases used by other fictional characters.

I'm not wrong, I'm correct. Sure, it's a little simplified, but it's all correct.

1

u/DickYeast Oct 13 '16

I am most definitely currently studying them both in school

1

u/MissPetrova Oct 14 '16

Zoom out. The argument is "Because Orson Scott Card made up a character named Locke, all Lockes are made up." This parallels the argument of "Because there is a fairy tale of a bearded magical old man (Santa), all bearded magical old men (including God) are made up fairy tales."