God's Law and the "Faithful"
- Thread starter Tiassa
- Start date
Tiassa nice to see you, been a while. Can you elaborate? it's a bit vague and unusual for you to start a thread with just one sentence.
Most Americans don't believe they walk with the devil, what makes you see this observation? Politics, US's foreign policies, our culture (whatever that may be) or lack there of, or idol worship, "dood where's my car? mentality" Capitalism, if we can call it that, really it's too vague what you are trying to insinuate?
Most Americans don't believe they walk with the devil, what makes you see this observation? Politics, US's foreign policies, our culture (whatever that may be) or lack there of, or idol worship, "dood where's my car? mentality" Capitalism, if we can call it that, really it's too vague what you are trying to insinuate?
I believe he was inspired to start this thread by this one, http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=65998 .
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
bECAUSE..... the usa... has a secular government.. and a secular society.
secular.... according to Anton LeVay... is modern Satanism.
Satanism... fits perectly... with modern american secularism...
so... they, CHRISTIANS, are forced to adopt Satanic ways... because it is american culture.... to do as you please...
to have the freedom to sleep with who you want... when you want.
freedom.... has little to do.. with obediance to god.
-MT
secular.... according to Anton LeVay... is modern Satanism.
Satanism... fits perectly... with modern american secularism...
so... they, CHRISTIANS, are forced to adopt Satanic ways... because it is american culture.... to do as you please...
to have the freedom to sleep with who you want... when you want.
freedom.... has little to do.. with obediance to god.
-MT
Cigars
Indeed, 'tis wonderful to see you as well. As to elaboration, I thank you for making a point for me that I was hoping to make (Note for Repo: Close, but not quite; it was another topic).
This abstract point comes from a criticism raised in another topic; I had inquired about "conceptual integrity", providing an example and a few considerations, and received criticism for wasting words. (As you might recall, neither conceptual integrity or accusations of wasting words are new to my presence at Sciforums.)
Curious considerations, however, arose surrounding a book delviered to my doorstep by an anonymous religous evangelist. There are a number of curious considerations about the book; to the one, it is in part something I have asked for in that its content is not meant for converting someone like me, but rather undertakes a dispute between Christians. Strikingly, the book is full of rhetoric that often gets folks in my position accused of bigotry.
The single question is derived from Ten Commandments Twice Removed by Danny Shelton and Shelly Quinn. The former is the president of Three Angels Broadcasting Network, an evangelical Christian operation, and the latter a program host for 3ABN.
Shelton and Quinn address a couple of questions to Christians in the context of the debate surrounding governmental displays of the Ten Commandments. One of these questions is, "If the Ten Commandments are so important to society, why do you obey only nine?"
Additionally, they write that the skewed logic and Biblical interpretations of Christians who worship on Sunday is not a product of God or man, but rather the Devil, and at one point declare that Satan has succeeded in removing the Ten Commandments from the hearts of most Christians.
These Christians, then, walk with the Devil, following an agenda inspired by the archenemy of Christ.
Again, I find it curious that critics of Christianity have been accused of bigotry for asking similar questions.
Obviously, it's very difficult for a Christian to be bigoted against Christians, so this nifty but misguided evangelism has provided me an opportunity to ask and, hopefully, get an answer to this most puzzling question. After all, many of us at Sciforums who criticize the state of modern Christianity are actually seeking a way to get along with our neighbors without forfeiting the whole of our freedoms to theocracy.
For the time being, it is enough to focus on the positive outcome of this evangelization; I could certainly list the book's dishonest qualities, and there are at least a few important ones, but that can certainly wait for another time.
Oh, yeah ... the topic that led to the one-line topic post: "Conceptual Integrity?"
I do think it's a fair question, though: What is so important about the government posting religious commandments that the majority of the religion's belivers forsake?
If it's not important enough in their lives, what business do they have foisting it on the rest of us?
Godless said:
Indeed, 'tis wonderful to see you as well. As to elaboration, I thank you for making a point for me that I was hoping to make (Note for Repo: Close, but not quite; it was another topic).
This abstract point comes from a criticism raised in another topic; I had inquired about "conceptual integrity", providing an example and a few considerations, and received criticism for wasting words. (As you might recall, neither conceptual integrity or accusations of wasting words are new to my presence at Sciforums.)
Curious considerations, however, arose surrounding a book delviered to my doorstep by an anonymous religous evangelist. There are a number of curious considerations about the book; to the one, it is in part something I have asked for in that its content is not meant for converting someone like me, but rather undertakes a dispute between Christians. Strikingly, the book is full of rhetoric that often gets folks in my position accused of bigotry.
The single question is derived from Ten Commandments Twice Removed by Danny Shelton and Shelly Quinn. The former is the president of Three Angels Broadcasting Network, an evangelical Christian operation, and the latter a program host for 3ABN.
Shelton and Quinn address a couple of questions to Christians in the context of the debate surrounding governmental displays of the Ten Commandments. One of these questions is, "If the Ten Commandments are so important to society, why do you obey only nine?"
Additionally, they write that the skewed logic and Biblical interpretations of Christians who worship on Sunday is not a product of God or man, but rather the Devil, and at one point declare that Satan has succeeded in removing the Ten Commandments from the hearts of most Christians.
These Christians, then, walk with the Devil, following an agenda inspired by the archenemy of Christ.
Again, I find it curious that critics of Christianity have been accused of bigotry for asking similar questions.
Obviously, it's very difficult for a Christian to be bigoted against Christians, so this nifty but misguided evangelism has provided me an opportunity to ask and, hopefully, get an answer to this most puzzling question. After all, many of us at Sciforums who criticize the state of modern Christianity are actually seeking a way to get along with our neighbors without forfeiting the whole of our freedoms to theocracy.
For the time being, it is enough to focus on the positive outcome of this evangelization; I could certainly list the book's dishonest qualities, and there are at least a few important ones, but that can certainly wait for another time.
Oh, yeah ... the topic that led to the one-line topic post: "Conceptual Integrity?"
I do think it's a fair question, though: What is so important about the government posting religious commandments that the majority of the religion's belivers forsake?
If it's not important enough in their lives, what business do they have foisting it on the rest of us?
It's a good point. For example, Mormons are notoriously supportive of their theocratic leaders. Frequently, if not in thought at least in unspoken truth, the saying goes, "Once the leaders have spoken, the decision has been made." Disagreeing with the ruling theocracy, for Mormons especially, opens that gate to Hell just a bit wider in their minds. They're one step removed from all-out apostasy. Better to be safe and secure and put any doubts or concerns on the "back-burner," approaching God about them at a later date.
Similarly, adding the Ten Commandments into basically every public place only entrenches the followers even more so. It's easier to rule the masses if they all believe in the same God / Devil. Since the theocratic elite are nearly untouchable by their followers, it's also easier to accept their follies or missteps (as long as they're not too extreme, e.g. Ted Haggard). So, gradually, once the Ten Commandments become prominently displayed throughout everywhere, the followers are constrained to obey the lesser laws (namely, the commandments) while understanding that the leaders are allowed to obey the higher laws (whatever the hell they want or choose to do). Christians inherently understand that rules are usually bent or broken by their leaders but since they are leaders in the first place and next to God, God must in some way condone this potentially "self-correcting" behavior.
Many Christians just pay lip service to Christ but are really God-mongerers, it seems. Whereas Christ didn't actively go out and destroy people and justify it endlessly, God went out of his way (O.T.) to kill as many people that disagreed with him as possible. This kind of thinking trickles down, naturally, to the adherents. Since God isn't here to destroy the infidels of his own, perhaps his followers were intended to be his instruments of destruction? It's how the idea is justified in their collective minds. Christ is the liberal pussy while God is the diehard conservative.
Christians think they're following Christ and advocating his teachings when they say they want the Ten Commandments displayed everywhere. If they did follow Christ, they'd be hankering for the Beattitudes to be displayed. But, of course, the ruling Christians would find it more difficult to actually rule without the inherent fear from the Ten.
Similarly, adding the Ten Commandments into basically every public place only entrenches the followers even more so. It's easier to rule the masses if they all believe in the same God / Devil. Since the theocratic elite are nearly untouchable by their followers, it's also easier to accept their follies or missteps (as long as they're not too extreme, e.g. Ted Haggard). So, gradually, once the Ten Commandments become prominently displayed throughout everywhere, the followers are constrained to obey the lesser laws (namely, the commandments) while understanding that the leaders are allowed to obey the higher laws (whatever the hell they want or choose to do). Christians inherently understand that rules are usually bent or broken by their leaders but since they are leaders in the first place and next to God, God must in some way condone this potentially "self-correcting" behavior.
Many Christians just pay lip service to Christ but are really God-mongerers, it seems. Whereas Christ didn't actively go out and destroy people and justify it endlessly, God went out of his way (O.T.) to kill as many people that disagreed with him as possible. This kind of thinking trickles down, naturally, to the adherents. Since God isn't here to destroy the infidels of his own, perhaps his followers were intended to be his instruments of destruction? It's how the idea is justified in their collective minds. Christ is the liberal pussy while God is the diehard conservative.
Christians think they're following Christ and advocating his teachings when they say they want the Ten Commandments displayed everywhere. If they did follow Christ, they'd be hankering for the Beattitudes to be displayed. But, of course, the ruling Christians would find it more difficult to actually rule without the inherent fear from the Ten.
Is it the phrasing of the question in the topic post that motivates the lack of Christian response? Are the Christians simply looking through Scripture before putting their two cents in?
Can I consider this a lesson learned in the word-count consideration?
Can I consider this a lesson learned in the word-count consideration?
When religious folk have their way, and have power, it does not make them behave any better. See Muslims and sharia law, or christians in medieval europe.
Religious folk abolishing secular society isn't going to make the religious right act any more sensibly. And at the end of the day, all you can think about is people's sexual habits. That's pretty typical of a religious nut isn't it?
Okay, I'll beg.
Seriously, is there anyone aside from my daughter's self-righteous grandfather who will take up the question? At this point, I'll even take his answer, which is to agree with the question and pretend that his religious faith is perfect.
Pleeeeeeease?
Seriously, is there anyone aside from my daughter's self-righteous grandfather who will take up the question? At this point, I'll even take his answer, which is to agree with the question and pretend that his religious faith is perfect.
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
IF YOU READ THE SATANIC BIBLE.....
YOU WILL SEE THAT ALL THE THINGS... WE CALL AMERICAN FREEDOMS.. AND LIBERTY .... to do as we please....
are all promoted by the satanic bible.
its that simple...
-MT
YOU WILL SEE THAT ALL THE THINGS... WE CALL AMERICAN FREEDOMS.. AND LIBERTY .... to do as we please....
are all promoted by the satanic bible.
its that simple...
-MT
C
charles cure
Guest
the satanic bible is sort of like a bad joke. it doesn't actually have anything to do with satan, but instead is just the pointless mental wanderings of some hippie who found the catholic church to be too oppressive. the reason you find american liberties so antithetical to religious values is simple: god hates freedom. if you were to read any of a number of religious texts and take them literally, you find that all they really are in a general sense is a giant list of prohibitions, punishments, and holidays to celebrate.
Mosheh Thezion said:
There's a reason, Mosheh. The Satanic Bible was written in the last forty years, by an undereducated and embittered circus hand.
Oh, and there's a church in Seattle that would make the point that freedom and God have much to do with one another. This particular house of Christian worship (Baptist, maybe?) used to run a slogan on their marquee: "Freedom is the Liberty to do what God says is right."
And if Christians feel "forced", it is because their faith is insufficient: the proper course in such cases seems rather well-described.
Maybe Daniel should have given up on God, integrated to the society, and spent the rest of his life complaining about being "forced" to give over. That would certainly go over well with God, right?
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
you asked why christians walk with the devil...
I answered.
they do so... because they have been mislead into thinking that secular freedom .... is what god wants for them.
THAT god wants them to live in a world, that tolerates every kind of sin and perversion..... tolerates it, and even promotes it.. in big ads...
that is the big lie.
god does not want us to live in such a free liberal society.
satan does.
forget the satanic bible..
you know the truth.
-MT
I answered.
they do so... because they have been mislead into thinking that secular freedom .... is what god wants for them.
THAT god wants them to live in a world, that tolerates every kind of sin and perversion..... tolerates it, and even promotes it.. in big ads...
that is the big lie.
god does not want us to live in such a free liberal society.
satan does.
forget the satanic bible..
you know the truth.
-MT
Mosheh Thezion said:
Fair enough. Except I run into a problem when I consider the modern Christian rhetoric about the faith's place in our American culture. The country was founded largely by Christians, and Christianity has been invoked in just about every conflict and crisis to face our society.
It seems to me, then, if I apply your theory ... well, let's do it syllogistically:
If Christians claim to have founded and influenced the nation, and ...
... if Christians were fooled into believing a false assertion of God ...
... Then it seems to me that the Christians fooled themselves.
... if Christians were fooled into believing a false assertion of God ...
... Then it seems to me that the Christians fooled themselves.
Curious. I mean, I could have imagined that one, but I still don't know what to do with it. (My first instinct is to wonder, "So why the hell do they have to take it out on the rest of us?" But such a question has proven unproductive in the past.)
Additionally, in the case of the Fourth Commandment, as raised by Shelton and Quinn (see post #6 above), I'm not sure your answer applies. This particular issue was imported to these shores with the first European settlers. For instance, something like the widespread defiance among U.S. churches of Christ's admonition in Luke 16.18 (remarriage after divorce is adultery), which leads to widespread endorsement of breaking the Sixth Commandment, yes, I can see how American cultural influence fanned the flames. But not everything wrong with American Christians can be blamed on American freedom.
Oh, wait. Walking with the devil. Right. My bad. I forgot about that.
And you may be right: I suppose I should forget about the Satanic Bible, since the Christian one seems to accomplish the same things in society.
Just how are Christians any different than the other major religions? I think this is more of an anti-USA thing right now. Of course, you have every right to feel that way, because our current leadership has the worst foreign policy in the history of our nation. We've earned your slings and arrows, so have at it.
But I wouldn't call this a religious issue. George Bush is a certified idiot, who probably doesn't understand his own religious beliefs beyond the rituals performed during Mass.
Anyway, the Christian religion itself is not bad. I mean, there are plenty of things within the Bible that are horrendous, and should be discarded completely--things on slave master rights, the role of women in everyday society, and how we are supposed to handle things such as homosexuality--but there are also some very important lessons that can be learned from it. You can safely base your moral foundation on certain aspects of the Bible, and not be a closed-minded fool. Just as you can with any religion.
The problem with religions are the people. Take Bush, for example, who is banning stem cell research for no other reason than "we should not play God". Or the ongoing battles in the Middle East, which happen over land, but also because the people of different religious sects simply refuse to live anywhere near each other.
It is in the hands of jackasses that religion becomes a weapon. I'd liken religion to a tree; you can shade yourself under it, eat of its fruit, even cut it down and build a home from its wood...but you can also cut off a branch and club your neighbor to death with it. It all depends on who you are.
How closely do you follow your religious doctrine, Tiassa? Are you an ardent follower of every letter of law in your selected religious text? Because if you want to finger-point about Christians not following the word of their god, shouldn't you try to understand that all of those texts were written thousands of years ago? The whole world has changed, and nearly all of those ideals serve no purpose in today's world.
And I would venture that more than half of the teachings in the Bible were written by people with agendas. Who do you think "remarriage after divorce is a sin" was written for? WOMEN, so they would not feel the need to leave their husbands for a better suitor. It shouldn't be taken as law simply because it has been preserved.
But I wouldn't call this a religious issue. George Bush is a certified idiot, who probably doesn't understand his own religious beliefs beyond the rituals performed during Mass.
Anyway, the Christian religion itself is not bad. I mean, there are plenty of things within the Bible that are horrendous, and should be discarded completely--things on slave master rights, the role of women in everyday society, and how we are supposed to handle things such as homosexuality--but there are also some very important lessons that can be learned from it. You can safely base your moral foundation on certain aspects of the Bible, and not be a closed-minded fool. Just as you can with any religion.
The problem with religions are the people. Take Bush, for example, who is banning stem cell research for no other reason than "we should not play God". Or the ongoing battles in the Middle East, which happen over land, but also because the people of different religious sects simply refuse to live anywhere near each other.
It is in the hands of jackasses that religion becomes a weapon. I'd liken religion to a tree; you can shade yourself under it, eat of its fruit, even cut it down and build a home from its wood...but you can also cut off a branch and club your neighbor to death with it. It all depends on who you are.
How closely do you follow your religious doctrine, Tiassa? Are you an ardent follower of every letter of law in your selected religious text? Because if you want to finger-point about Christians not following the word of their god, shouldn't you try to understand that all of those texts were written thousands of years ago? The whole world has changed, and nearly all of those ideals serve no purpose in today's world.
And I would venture that more than half of the teachings in the Bible were written by people with agendas. Who do you think "remarriage after divorce is a sin" was written for? WOMEN, so they would not feel the need to leave their husbands for a better suitor. It shouldn't be taken as law simply because it has been preserved.
5150, and then some
Actually, I follow it very closely. This is an easy feat, though. The core of my religious doctrine is contained within two principles:
Everything else is a matter of learning.
In the first place, there's just not that much for me to follow. To the other, though, it's not about pointing fingers at "Christians" as much as it is warding off the invasive horror of a vast army marching in God's name. Had Christians not so much political influence, and if it functioned in our nation of Equal Protection without preference under the law, I could care less how hypocritical any given Christian or the Christian body social was.
Additionally, you are presumptuous: " ... shouldn't you try to understand that all of those texts were written thousands of years ago?"
Yes, I understand this. It is part of how I view the Bible. However, these very influential Christians do not seem to care that "the whole world has changed". Torture and war, theft and corruption, lies and extortion: no wonder these people believe in something like a Devil. In the end, they need something to blame their conduct on. Each violation has had to be pried from their greedy, clutching fingers. Look at our modern political debates. The "family values" of marital traditionalists are Christian values; in the end, all these folks are asking for is that the government not violate their right to hurt other people. What they're refusing to give up is their right to play God on Earth, to decide justice and equality for all people according to their traditions (so elegantly colored with gold and blood).
In the issue outlined in post #6 above, it's simply a matter of integrity. These religious folks want to force us to accept the public sponsorship of Ten Commandments that they, the faithful advocates, don't bother following.
Obviously. We can easily agree on that. (At this point, I generally recommend Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan, which attempts to pull the Gospels out of their imagined historical vacuum.)
Which is another interesting point of integrity. I could care less, for instance, about the split between Catholics and Protestants until it starts to hurt people. But I do find it interesting that many anti-Catholics (such as Lawrence M. Nelson, whose Antichrist I read in a day recently) persist in using a Biblical canon devised by the people they consider the embodiment of Satan's agenda. The only difference between Catholic and Protestant bibles is a few missing books. The Protestants didn't bother to reformulate the canon, just trimmed the one handed to them by, well, if we accept Nelson's thesis, Satan. Why bother bowdlerizing the Bible at all? Makes the theology easier. Politics and religion make for interesting but dangerous mythical chemistry. You know, like a meth lab exploding or something. Wild, cool, deadly.
People believe it, take it as law, because they believe the words were spoken by a man they believe lived in a certain time and promised to save them all.
It's an interesting thesis: Jesus was a misogynist.
Fine. I'll bite. And since God inspired the other books of the New Testament, we can take that bit from Timothy about keeping women silent and covering their heads--rather like Westerners complain about Muslims--and conclude that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit alike consider women inferior beings. And hey, they ought to know, since they are the ones who, according to that myth, made women.
Of course, when you introduce apocalyptic/prophetic assertions like "God, who knew the end from the beginning ...," you might end up wondering why God bothered at all.
Look, all I want for Christians is that they are happy. It's no more and no less than I wish for anybody. And while I normally have sympathy for people who are their own worst enemies, it's like anything else. I have sympathy for the crack addict, and even the pedophile. But part of coexisting with these sorts includes preventing further damage by their actions. I will no more kill the Christian than the crack addict or pedophile, but at some point I have to draw the line: I don't want it around my daughter in her home, in her school, and so forth.
My daughter's Christian grandparents (maternal) think they're being sly. They know how I feel about religion, and her mother tells me she feels the same. But the grandparents are teaching my child ridiculous things. Of late, I've heard more renditions of "Jesus Loves Me" and "Happy Happy Home" than anyone ought to be required to tolerate, and a few days ago my bundle of light and love announced, out of the blue, "God made the world!" But worry not, I say, for the good Doctor Tiassa has just the remedy.
Beyond family, however, I will not tolerate that kind of crap. I cannot, by principle or practical reality, make Christians go away. And I will not raise my daughter to the rabid atheistic hatred that even I've felt in my day. It's a horrible feeling, indeed. My best alternative, then, is to try to understand what makes the Christians tick. Problem there, of course, is that so few of them will honestly address fundamental issues unless it's "fundamentalism".
As you wrote, "The problem with religions are people." I couldn't agree more. At least, not until I find myself standing before God at Judgment. Then I'll say, "Well, I finally see the problem with religion." But as to the people: I have to live in a community with them. I won't kill them, I won't try to ban them. Beyond that, I can only try to meet them halfway and wait for them to ask me to come halfway again. It's like an old chorus:
JDawg said:
Actually, I follow it very closely. This is an easy feat, though. The core of my religious doctrine is contained within two principles:
(1) Law of Thelema - Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
(2) Threefold Law - What you sow, so also shall you reap, but three times over.
(2) Threefold Law - What you sow, so also shall you reap, but three times over.
Everything else is a matter of learning.
In the first place, there's just not that much for me to follow. To the other, though, it's not about pointing fingers at "Christians" as much as it is warding off the invasive horror of a vast army marching in God's name. Had Christians not so much political influence, and if it functioned in our nation of Equal Protection without preference under the law, I could care less how hypocritical any given Christian or the Christian body social was.
Additionally, you are presumptuous: " ... shouldn't you try to understand that all of those texts were written thousands of years ago?"
Yes, I understand this. It is part of how I view the Bible. However, these very influential Christians do not seem to care that "the whole world has changed". Torture and war, theft and corruption, lies and extortion: no wonder these people believe in something like a Devil. In the end, they need something to blame their conduct on. Each violation has had to be pried from their greedy, clutching fingers. Look at our modern political debates. The "family values" of marital traditionalists are Christian values; in the end, all these folks are asking for is that the government not violate their right to hurt other people. What they're refusing to give up is their right to play God on Earth, to decide justice and equality for all people according to their traditions (so elegantly colored with gold and blood).
In the issue outlined in post #6 above, it's simply a matter of integrity. These religious folks want to force us to accept the public sponsorship of Ten Commandments that they, the faithful advocates, don't bother following.
Obviously. We can easily agree on that. (At this point, I generally recommend Elaine Pagels' The Origin of Satan, which attempts to pull the Gospels out of their imagined historical vacuum.)
Which is another interesting point of integrity. I could care less, for instance, about the split between Catholics and Protestants until it starts to hurt people. But I do find it interesting that many anti-Catholics (such as Lawrence M. Nelson, whose Antichrist I read in a day recently) persist in using a Biblical canon devised by the people they consider the embodiment of Satan's agenda. The only difference between Catholic and Protestant bibles is a few missing books. The Protestants didn't bother to reformulate the canon, just trimmed the one handed to them by, well, if we accept Nelson's thesis, Satan. Why bother bowdlerizing the Bible at all? Makes the theology easier. Politics and religion make for interesting but dangerous mythical chemistry. You know, like a meth lab exploding or something. Wild, cool, deadly.
People believe it, take it as law, because they believe the words were spoken by a man they believe lived in a certain time and promised to save them all.
It's an interesting thesis: Jesus was a misogynist.
Fine. I'll bite. And since God inspired the other books of the New Testament, we can take that bit from Timothy about keeping women silent and covering their heads--rather like Westerners complain about Muslims--and conclude that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit alike consider women inferior beings. And hey, they ought to know, since they are the ones who, according to that myth, made women.
Of course, when you introduce apocalyptic/prophetic assertions like "God, who knew the end from the beginning ...," you might end up wondering why God bothered at all.
Look, all I want for Christians is that they are happy. It's no more and no less than I wish for anybody. And while I normally have sympathy for people who are their own worst enemies, it's like anything else. I have sympathy for the crack addict, and even the pedophile. But part of coexisting with these sorts includes preventing further damage by their actions. I will no more kill the Christian than the crack addict or pedophile, but at some point I have to draw the line: I don't want it around my daughter in her home, in her school, and so forth.
My daughter's Christian grandparents (maternal) think they're being sly. They know how I feel about religion, and her mother tells me she feels the same. But the grandparents are teaching my child ridiculous things. Of late, I've heard more renditions of "Jesus Loves Me" and "Happy Happy Home" than anyone ought to be required to tolerate, and a few days ago my bundle of light and love announced, out of the blue, "God made the world!" But worry not, I say, for the good Doctor Tiassa has just the remedy.
Beyond family, however, I will not tolerate that kind of crap. I cannot, by principle or practical reality, make Christians go away. And I will not raise my daughter to the rabid atheistic hatred that even I've felt in my day. It's a horrible feeling, indeed. My best alternative, then, is to try to understand what makes the Christians tick. Problem there, of course, is that so few of them will honestly address fundamental issues unless it's "fundamentalism".
As you wrote, "The problem with religions are people." I couldn't agree more. At least, not until I find myself standing before God at Judgment. Then I'll say, "Well, I finally see the problem with religion." But as to the people: I have to live in a community with them. I won't kill them, I won't try to ban them. Beyond that, I can only try to meet them halfway and wait for them to ask me to come halfway again. It's like an old chorus:
Always one more,
You're never satisfied.
Never "one for all" with you
It's only "one for me"
Oh, why draw the line, and
Meet you half the way,
When you don't know what that means?
(Van Halen, "5150")
You're never satisfied.
Never "one for all" with you
It's only "one for me"
Oh, why draw the line, and
Meet you half the way,
When you don't know what that means?
(Van Halen, "5150")
Mosheh Thezion
Registered Senior Member
Tiassa,
few Christians.... are very good christians...
hypocracy knows no bounds.
and the founding fathers,.... were Masons, MOSTLY... not Christians...
and since when do Christians take the old testiment as being the literal word of God???
they dont... otherwise they would all become jews.
they dont....
they just ignore the old testiment, in favor of the new.
Many Christians have argued to me, that even the 10 commandments are for jews.... not christians.
its dumb i know...
but it is also very common.
-MT
few Christians.... are very good christians...
hypocracy knows no bounds.
and the founding fathers,.... were Masons, MOSTLY... not Christians...
and since when do Christians take the old testiment as being the literal word of God???
they dont... otherwise they would all become jews.
they dont....
they just ignore the old testiment, in favor of the new.
Many Christians have argued to me, that even the 10 commandments are for jews.... not christians.
its dumb i know...
but it is also very common.
-MT
Tiassa,
The whole idea of war is a natural aspect of Humanity. Every other living being in existence battles their own kind, and so do we. The only thing that makes our battles different is that we are intelligent, and can band together a group larger than our immediate family to battle another group. We can build weapons--but the only difference between Humans and everything else on the planet is that we have the intelligence to modify the battle.
And because religion is such a basic part of our genetic code, we are always going to use it to justify things. Murders, wars, doesn't matter; religion is the answer, the reason.
That will never change. And Christians are not the only ones who do it.
I agree. But that is because we, as a society, have allowed it. Rather than actually voting for the different candidate, the one who speaks honestly--and from a different viewpoint than the rest--we are simply electing the one who has the most money, and lately, has the most ardent Christian beliefs.
We have no one to blame but ourselves for that.
Any difference in beliefs will cause harm to one side or the other--or both. Be it religious or land ownership, there will always be something to fight about. Always. People are more sensitive to the religious aspect of this, simply because the religious battles persist far longer than any other kind. But again, nothing will change that. Nothing can change that.
Again, you're talking about Christians only because you are surrounded by them, and governed by them. But they are no worse than any other religion in power. Actually, you'd be best served in America (or another Western nation) being governed by Christians, because there is far worse out there. Imagine being a woman in the Middle East? Granted, there are places that have advanced somewhat, but most have not.
Well, it is the truth. Religion has amazing benefits to Humanity, but it is a double-edged sword that cannot be dulled. The only hope is that Humanity's next step in evolution will not feature this religious instinct. That is a theory that has some good standing, considering that Humans have found so many other ways to cope with death (burial, cremation--both meeting the "out of sight, out of mind" alternative to the old "I'll see them in the afterlife") and with things we can't understand (building telescopes, and the much-discussed high-speed colliders that are supposed to be able to recreate the seconds following the Big Bang).
I hate to sound so crass about religion, and I don't mean to sound as if yours is factually false. I can't know that for sure, obviously. But what I will say is that there is evidence that the ability to believe in Higher Powers was a very handy by-product of being intelligent, and has outlived its purpose. Eventually, I believe that this genetic code will be phased out.
The whole idea of war is a natural aspect of Humanity. Every other living being in existence battles their own kind, and so do we. The only thing that makes our battles different is that we are intelligent, and can band together a group larger than our immediate family to battle another group. We can build weapons--but the only difference between Humans and everything else on the planet is that we have the intelligence to modify the battle.
And because religion is such a basic part of our genetic code, we are always going to use it to justify things. Murders, wars, doesn't matter; religion is the answer, the reason.
That will never change. And Christians are not the only ones who do it.
I agree. But that is because we, as a society, have allowed it. Rather than actually voting for the different candidate, the one who speaks honestly--and from a different viewpoint than the rest--we are simply electing the one who has the most money, and lately, has the most ardent Christian beliefs.
We have no one to blame but ourselves for that.
Any difference in beliefs will cause harm to one side or the other--or both. Be it religious or land ownership, there will always be something to fight about. Always. People are more sensitive to the religious aspect of this, simply because the religious battles persist far longer than any other kind. But again, nothing will change that. Nothing can change that.
Again, you're talking about Christians only because you are surrounded by them, and governed by them. But they are no worse than any other religion in power. Actually, you'd be best served in America (or another Western nation) being governed by Christians, because there is far worse out there. Imagine being a woman in the Middle East? Granted, there are places that have advanced somewhat, but most have not.
Well, it is the truth. Religion has amazing benefits to Humanity, but it is a double-edged sword that cannot be dulled. The only hope is that Humanity's next step in evolution will not feature this religious instinct. That is a theory that has some good standing, considering that Humans have found so many other ways to cope with death (burial, cremation--both meeting the "out of sight, out of mind" alternative to the old "I'll see them in the afterlife") and with things we can't understand (building telescopes, and the much-discussed high-speed colliders that are supposed to be able to recreate the seconds following the Big Bang).
I hate to sound so crass about religion, and I don't mean to sound as if yours is factually false. I can't know that for sure, obviously. But what I will say is that there is evidence that the ability to believe in Higher Powers was a very handy by-product of being intelligent, and has outlived its purpose. Eventually, I believe that this genetic code will be phased out.