Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous invisible keyboard | Caution Next »
The Word Of Christ
Surprisingly indistinguishable from one’s personal opinion, actually.
(Becky Fisher of the film Jesus Camp)
Picture by: dunno source. Caption by: dunno source via Poster Builder
 | Pratrp on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
 | Bob the eternally un… on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
| Pratrp on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
 | itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
| Bob the eternally un… on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
 | Majken on Famous Alumni |
| itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
| Bob the eternally un… on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
| itsybit on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
| Bob the eternally un… on Gay Rights: Coming to a Theate… |
Cheezburger Company Blog
I Can Has Cheezburger? - Lolcats n Funny Pictures 
Lolcats - Lolcats n' Funny Cat Pictures
I Has A Hotdog - Loldogs n Cute Puppies 
Animal Capshunz - All of the Internet's Animals. Captioned
Animal Gifs - Cute and Hilarious Animal Gifs
Daily Squee - So cute your brain might explode. 
Historic LOLs - Captioned Portraits of Yore
My Food Looks Funny - Funny Food Photos
So Much Pun - Visual Puns and Jokes
ROFLrazzi - Lol Celebs and All That's Fab Funny in Showbiz 
Totally Looks Like - Stuff That Looks Like Other Stuff
Must Have Cute - See. Want. Must Have!
![\"Quantcast\"/](\"http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-94wNw88f65Rhk.gif?labels=MTVN%20Digital%20Tribes\")
Lol News has hit a new low…
Or a new high. I’m kinda pissed that the best thing to come out of the BC era has been so hugely ignored. How those twits that followed him around manage to get more press then he does is still beyond me.
Shut up. Jesus Camp opened my eyes to the blasphemy upon human rights that is religion.
People like her need to be locked up and put away for a very long time for crimes against humanity.
She’d say the same about you…
Not crimes against humanity… criminal stupidity. Criminal stupidity so egregious that every breath she takes is a felony, and every word she utters is a capital offense.
It’s purely coincidental, but for some reason I’m reminded of the Little House on the Prairie episode where Nellie Oleson read her school essay, “Why Jesus Loves Me More Than Most.”
I thought that was Nancy Olsen?
I totally agree with you. Her camp practically brainwashes kids and does NOT let them think for themselves. Whatever she says, goes. Total cult leader…. it makes me so angry.
You should watch ‘Jesus Camp’. It’s a documentary about the Evangelical religion that she represents and the camp she runs. Watch that, then form an opinion. (Btw, she’s pretty messed up.)
So you accept that she is speaking for the supposed Christ?
Just the opposite.
Hey moses did, who is to say that she can’t. Just because he ideas are controversial? so was what moses said during his time and yet now he is viewed as a profit by all christians. Dont worry tho, i’m not arguing for her, im actually arguing that religion is a bunch of bull
Good argument. Bad grammar. I totally agree with you, but take more time to proofread
Have you SEEN the film? It’s disgusting. This wretched harpy has small children weeping in shame for their sins. Tell me, what vile sins has an 8-year-old committed that are worthy of such self-loathing? She yells at them for the horrible sin of having normal lives, for having friends without constantly trying to shove Jesus down their throats. A little boy who confesses to struggling with occasional doubt is looked upon with abject horror. A little girl says that it’s tough sometimes to remember that her dancing should be solely to glorify god and never “for the flesh” – who is the pervert who used a phrase with such sexual undertones to describe a little child’s dancing? Go watch this horrific film (or at least the clips available on YouTube) before you get all prissy about it.
It truly is vile.. how can anyone justify thrusting that kind of hefty guilt on such a young child?
Jake I could not have said it better myself.
I agree, Jake. Thank you.
Plus, apparently, these people are destroying the First Amendment to the US by trying to force evangelical Christianity down other people’s throats.
The First Amendment only applies to the actions of Congress, actually.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Thus, the First Amendment has no bearing on what individuals, cities, states, and organizations do. The 500-and-change legislators on the Hill cannot legally make you join or leave any faith.
Actually an 8 year old is almost sinless, because he/she just barely reached the age of accountability.
Disgusting indeed, but having been raised in the midwest, my experience is that she’s pretty darn mainstream. What she’s doing is tried and true and has been the norm for much of America for a very long time. I’m 50 years old and was subjected to the same abuses she lays out at Jesus Camp in my day to day life as a child and my parents weren’t even religious. You got this from many adults – Teachers, coaches, other kids parents, it was the satus quo. She is the “normal” one based on the numbers, not us. I’m shocked that people don’t know this, but encouraged that those who don’t know that most of their country has been like this for decades are now finding out!
“most of their country” … you said having been raised in the midwest at the beginning of your post. maybe that’s just your personal life, and not everyone has that experiment? you need numbers and citations to say that this is “average”.
I’m disturbed by some of the content as well. As a parent of 5 children, I must state the importance of making sure your children are receiving the proper spiritual nurturing necessary, just like we need to feed them the proper nutrition for their bodies. On another note, we also need to show our children how to pray for others and themselves NOW because things are not getting any better for them in schools. My daughter was shunned in school (a 7 year old) for saying how much she loves Jesus and how Jesus is God. She was shunned to the point that when I was going to read the bible to the kids during the holidays, she violently shook her head and placed her hands on her ears saying she didn’t want to hear about Jesus. I was totally shocked and had to have a one on one conversation with the teacher over the phone about my daughter’s reaction and that she needs to cautiously speak with her that it’s ok for her to believe in God or Jesus, just like I told her that some people don’t want to hear about it. “No one should fear saying Jesus or God in school”, I told her. We settled the matter, but as you see kids are impressionable on both sides of the spectrum…those who want to suppress their freedom of speech about the love they have for Jesus and those who are like wolves in sheep clothing misleading our children.
Your post made me feel sorry for your indoctrinated children- I hope they become rational atheists just to spite you.
Why do you think your daughter felt compelled to talk about how much she loved Jesus!? Because Parents like you drive “the word of the Lord” down their children’s throats from a young age- telling children too you to question that Jesus watches them and loves them. In my day-to-day life I am surounded by rational people who cannot explain why they are Christian, simple answer: they were cursed (like me) with active Christian parents. However while I grew up to question the religion I was forced to believe, they never fealt the need- wrapped up their blanket of security- never needing to step out-side the box. Is this how you want your kids to grow up?
“It’s ok for her to believe in God or Jesus, just like I told her that some people don’t want to hear about it.”
So here we have someone teaching their children to understand other’s stances without being ashamed of their own…And that’s not enough for you? Jings…
Yes but she’s teaching her children about Christianity as the defualt state- she’s teaching them that “some people” don’t want to hear about Jesus. I think you misunderstand the power of that phrase.
Please remember that I too was eductated by Christian parents
I think you read too much into “some people.” It’s a very common, ordinary phrase.
“Some people” don’t believe in Jesus.
“Some people” don’t believe in atheism.
If you think that one of these sentences is absolutely fine and the other isn’t, you may have double standards.
If you are determined to find something wrong with a post, you will. She did not call atheists “fools” or “infidels” or “scum.” She called them people and taught her daughter that everyone has a different viewpoint.
I remember that you were educated by Christian parents and it sounds to me as though you are allowing that experience to unfairly colour your view of EJ.
And having Christianity as the default state? Well, what’s so wrong with that? If you have a family you can teach your child that atheism is the default state. As a Christian, I will find that wrong but will respect that because it is your family and your children.
It’s a little late, but well put, AC.
Agreed…It’s impossible to have a loving relationship with your kids and keep all your views to yourself. We all, as good parents, try to teach them the best we know how.
I seriously want her to look upon her own sins before she brings other people’s supposed wrongdoings into light. I hate people like this. What a horrid woman.
I enjoyed a quote from a recent-ish movie, The Island: (probably not exact word for word, but mostly)
“You know when you really want something, and you wish for it really hard? God’s the guy that ignores you.”
But that’s just a bit of luls.
This woman isn’t luls really. She’s obviously insane and, worryingly, there are more like her. What kind of God is worth living your life in such a way? Don’t do ANYTHING enjoyable (except praising God) because otherwise you go to hell!
Seriously. If all these insane Christians are going to be in heaven and I’m going to Hell, I’ll go with that. Seems like I’ll have the company of NORMAL people.
omg did you just call US insane? you guys are the insane ones.
I’d like to take that topic up with you at length. Please e-mail anonymous (.) wintershadow@googlemail (.) com
Why are you so intent upon debating with an 11-year-old?
toria, you just don’t get it. sin is blocking you heart. look at the world, how could murders and sex offenders be normal? i may have a short temper, but i don’t want anyone to go to hell. we are not insane. someday you will realize that. all those “normal people” won’t matter in hell. mark my words, they won’t. do you know what hell is? lava. fire. it is hotter than the sun and it will never and i mean never end. in heaven there are streets of gold. water that makes you never be thirsty again, same for the food. all of us , the people you mock, will have mansions of gold, while non-Christians will be burning.when Jesus says “depart from me evil doer, i never knew you.” that will be when you realize that your life was a lie. that you were and are wrong. that all of us “insane” people were right.
look up dr. vick young.
yes, i’m sure that’s the case. if you really think this, you need to think for yourself a bit. if non-Christians are burning, being tortured in hideous ways, etc, how is your god loving and forgiving, if he can condemn his own CHILDREN who weren’t strong enough to believe and made mistakes to eternal torture? how could you trust ANYthing that could do that to give you the promises you’ve stated? so you stated that sex offenders and murderers are not normal. i agree. you then state “all those ‘normal people’ won’t matter in hell”- you THEN proceed to state “non-Christians will be burning” so, you’re saying that everyone who isn’t christian is a murderer, sex offender, etc? if you think the rest of the world is insane, you need to take a logical, reasonable and thoughtful look at your life and your beliefs. you need to think in a STRAIGHT LINE, and admit there are holes you can’t cover up in any religion.
first off you completely misunderstood me. i didn’t say that ALL non-Christians are murderers or sex offenders. i just meant that is what a lot of the world seems to be. God doesn’t want anyone to go to hell. you can’t enter heaven unless your sins have been forgiven. and you are wrong about the holes in religion. i admit that we can’t understand everything. but Christianity is all true and all makes sense. we don’t know everything. i don’t know much anyway cause i’m only 11 anyway. and the line i think in is straight. and Christianity isn’t just religion, it’s faith.
Maybe you should finish grade five before you continue this line of straight thinking.
You’ll probably end up going atheist to spite your evangelical parents.
not likely. i’m already saved. and i will never deny God, even if there’s a gun in my face.
Would you deny god if he turned out to be whatever you would find totally depraved?
Never mind that that will never happen (whichever of us is right). Just make-believe, for a second.
You die, you go to the gates or what-have-you, and there is god, ready to forgive your sins. And you cannot stomach him, find him utterly despicable and repugnant.
Would you deny him then, or would you be wiling to repent your sins to someone visibly wallowing in the worst things you can imagine?
I’m not trying to put down faith or criticize religion. I just want to understand it, and what it’s followers believe.
I don’t need to be saved, thank you very much.
Christianity as a religion is f*cking full of motherf*cking holes! Half of it doesn’t even make f*cking sense when applied to science (which we KNOW to be true) However I can understand your ignorance considering your age- please learn more about your own religion and then e-mail me so we can get this whole thing settled out.
Just some questions here.
How do you know that science is true?
Is it because that’s what your teachers have taught you?
Have you ever thought that maybe there are things that we can’t perceive? After all theoretical physics points to things that are untestable all the time.
Now if there are things that cannot be perceived how would one test them with the scientific method?
What I’m saying here is that maybe you should question what you so firmly accept as truth. I do. If I did not question my faith I would not really be a believer. I would be a mindless tool for whoever wished to guide me. Be it right wing politicians or corrupt and hateful false preachers.
Being that Midge is apparently some sort of troll that changes names, and as such unreliable for debate, I’ll field some of these questions.
No legitimate scientist will tell you anything is true, only that it is probable. To hold scientific findings (and science in general) as absolute truth is a fallacy; the nature of science is that if findings turn out to be incorrect, they can be corrected (as opposed to many religions, where things are considered absolute).
Both sides require an amount of faith to believe in. The difference, though, is that where religion offers truths based without evidence aside from “what they say/wrote”, science strives to find evidence for what it claims is real, and is probable. It starts with a theory, and instead of instantly claiming it to be the answer (“God did it”), methodically tests it to see if it’s correct. The former side is, by nature, one that refuses to be contradicted because then it loses its basis, where the latter welcomes it.
As for things untestable by scientific method, well, that’s what science is striving towards: being able to explain the nature of the universe, or at least planet earth, through scientific method. It’s gradual, and it takes a long time, and scientists know that. But that is why I have faith in science. Nobody claims to have all the answers, but only that they are seeking them, and that is something I can get behind.
I am glad to hear that you question what you accept as truth (and very glad that you brought up the nature of the unperceived
), because it is open-minded people like you that aid science in finding answers and open the minds of others to what is possible, even if the end really does turn out to be “God did it”.
I said “nature” way too many times. It’s one of those days…
Great post Veritas.
Thanks, Cow. I’m not even a science major… just a happy observer.
and because God is the way, the truth, and the light.
Do you know what hell actually is? Gehenna, an ancient garbage dump in Israel invoked in curses by Israelites against other Israelites.
Do you know where your image of hell comes from? An allegorical poem, written in the 14th century by an Italian man named Dante.
Look up the origins of what you spout off as truth before you claim it to be as such.
A description of Hell exists in the Bible as well in the Book of Revelations. It is described as “a lake that burns with fire and sulfur.” The images of Hell as a pit of fire or lake of fire are Biblical, they didn’t come from Dante, although his description of Hell is more commonly known, they aren’t far from the Bible.
Im not saying the Bible is necessarily correct, however, the beliefs expressed here are Biblical in origin, not just a commonly held misconception, as many aspects of Christianity are.
See “Gehenna” as written above. That is where the image in the Bible comes from.
Modern interpretation of Hell is far and away more than just a lake of fire, and so that is why I cited Dante.
I’m just wondering. How do you know these things “NObama”? Did your bible tell you so? And even then, why is the bible “God’s word”? You do realize that it was written by HUMAN BEINGS right? You really have no proof for your “Hell is fire. Heaven has streets of gold” sentiment. And don’t tell me that you just go “by faith” because I can go “by faith” that, the minute I walk into a dark alley, my imaginary friend will protect me from the muggers hiding around the corner, when in reality, they’ll just beat me down and steal my wallet, leaving me for dead.
2 timothy 1-4 states that Christians will go through troubled times. that is like what you said. i grew up in a trailer park and my life was trashy. that was a test of faith. (my dad says like a goldsmith gets through gold through fire, and that’s how God gets pure souls.) now i’m in a real house with a real life that i always wanted. i’m 11 now. God isn’t an “imaginary friend” yes i did get this from my Bible, and how do you have proof that it isn’t true? you can’t. and i do go by faith. i walk in faith, because i know the future is brighter. The Bible was not written by human, only human hands. God is the true author. and my opinion about the dark alley thing, who in their right mind would walk into a dark alley without a baseball bat anyway!?!? i sure as heck wouldn’t.
oh and one more thing, The Bible says that many people won’t believe in Jesus Christ
Did you say you were 11 years old?
yup.
People like you realy make me want to kill things and burn down churches- I’m going to go and get my lighter.
Now if that was a joke, it would be ok, except someone actually DID torch the church in Wasilla once Palin got back there. See, it’s not funny when you do more than joke about it. Duh.
have fun. i’m going to heaven when i die. kill me then. i don’t care.
Someone make a note of this moron’s post.
The level of your indoctrination is sickening. Children shouldn’t be brainwashed into believing something, you shouldn’t be introduced to religion before you’re old enough to make your own decision. As it is your parents are probably evangelical maniacs who brainwashed you from the moment you were born. Sad, really.
Oh, and if you’re 11, you didn’t ‘grow up’ in a trailer park. You spent some of your life there, is all, and then your parents made more money or whatever. You’re still growing up, and it looks like you have quite a long way to go.
Ummmm, we have a little thing called “avatars” here. That’s that little geometrical shape next to your name. See, unless you are too stupid to figure out how to put another email address in the box then you can change your name all you want to and we still know it’s you. So Midge/Tony/Whatever, go pimp your email and trollish comments elsewhere.
If the Bible was written with the finger of God, and sent down in a flash of lightning I bet fewer people would read it, claiming it was fake. No, it was God speaking THROUGh men, telling exactly what to write so that it really does correlate with everything else the Book says, even though it was written by multiple authors. There were eyewitness accounts and testimonies for many of the books. Of all the people who saw Jesus, only a few wrote books about Him, why is that, hm?
As for what Heaven or Hell appears to be, there have been testimonies of visions about it, few exact descriptions. But God describes these few details such as the lake of fire, so on and so forth.
“Of all the people who saw Jesus, only a few wrote books about Him, why is that, hm?”
Actually, quite a lot of people wrote about him objectively. Even then, though, that’s like saying “of all the people in the world play music, why did only Beethoven write ‘Ode to Joy’? The notes were all there, they just needed someone to organize them.” The creative spirit does not reside in everyone, and in those it does, they do not all make the same things. It makes sense that in a time when few were literate and fewer still could write allegorically that only a few of those few would write the Bible.
As for the Hell described in the Bible, it’s described as a lake of fire because there was an actual “lake of fire” in ancient Israel. People write of what they know – an ancient Israelite would no doubt use such a place as a comparison to punishment, especially when it is already commonly invoked in oral curses.
Wow, your God is an incredibly evil being.
Who cares if you think that? Frankly, I prefer people who acknowledge that God might indeed be real – they just don’t LIKE Him very much. Or they maybe even hate him.
Now where were YOU exactly, when he set the mountains in place and caused the hawk to soar? Where were you when he filled the oceans and flung the stars to the far reaches of space exactly? I always get a kick out of people thinking they are the arbiters of what God should be and shouldn’t be. To be honest, it makes me laugh even though it probably shouldn’t. It’s just so bizarrely absurd.
The same people that care about his opinion that God is incredibly evil are probably the same ones that care about what kind of people you prefer: nobody.
That was a hell of a long way to go for an insult. Ended up being pretty lame.
Try harder.
It wasn’t an insult. I only figured that if you realized you’re vehemently arguing over silly things on an internet comment board and telling people what -you- prefer, you’d realize what a waste of time it is. This could be said about many people, but you in particular seem to expend quite a lot of effort. I’d imagine that with all your condescension, you’re frowning a lot, and we all know how that saying goes.
I suppose I should have figured you’d take any truth aimed in your direction as insult and attack, though, so that’s “my bad”.
So it wasn’t silly when they were arguing it, only when I offered my opinion. Nice. And that was another long way to go that ended up lame. When in doubt always say “Hey, I’m just trying to HELP you and be NICE to you and you take it as an insult.” LOL
You do know this is words on a screen, right?
It was silly when you decided to, specifically, talk about what kind of people you prefer. Where does that come into legitimate debate?
I do know it’s words on a screen. I also know that unless someone is typically defensive, they don’t get offended very easily.
Why did that make it silly? There should, for clarity, be a “though” between “Who cares what you think” and “I prefer”, however. It would read much more clearly. Because the person I was addressing was of the type I prefer – those who acknowledge God might be real, they just hate Him. That’s no more silly than anything else on this thread, or on this site, or on any humor site or any lol in existence. It just “is.” You’re being silly nitpicking, actually.
Well, when you’re debating ideas, you should try to avoid talking about personal preferences, because it diminishes the strength of your argument. It’s better to say, “I agree, and here’s why” and then obviously lead into the points. It gives more force and prevents the reader from viewing it as an individual opinion and more as a solid concept, if that makes sense.
I suppose I am being silly nitpicking, though, because not everyone treats these sorts of discussions as debates. I thought a bit of constructive criticism may help.
You’d come across a lot better if you’d just acknowledge the obvious – you went too far for an insult and it came off lame, now you’re spinning. And spinning it as “just trying to help” – but I guess you learned that from others here – hint: it doesn’t work.
Oh well, that means he can get away with the very un-Godlike qualities he exhibits in the Bible – arrogance, spite, pettiness, insecurity, rage, jealousy…
My God is an incredibly evil being? Maybe you should take just a slight look at the things he promotes, which the world could use more of. :/
Well so is your god. You’re Athiest and “there is no god”? Human nature is an incredibly evil being.
The problem with your argument is that it becomes very hard to see what your God promotes when so many claim to speak for him.
Right off the bat, you have the three Abrahamic religions – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All three worship the same root God, but all three have differing ideas about what He stands for. Beyond that there are the hundreds of different sects of all the religions, saying some of those things are right, but some are different.
Religions are judged by the words and actions of their followers. When nobody can make up their mind about what God is really saying and there are three holy books that contradict each other. Which group is promoting the “right” message, and who are you to say so?
A-theists- do not worship humans as gods. They recognize humans as human. My own personal view as an agnostic is that humans are not “evil” until something makes them that way (nurture, not nature), and in most cases this is reversible with the right treatment or rehabilitation (i.e., not just throwing people into prisons, but actually teaching them to be productive members of society; see Japan’s rehabilitation system). Many would agree with me, I’m sure. Humans can be incredibly evil AND incredibly good, and I think the charity performed by religious groups is a perfect example of that. It’s humans being human.
Dude, you’re friggin” nuts! What possible proof do you hold that speaks of these things? Enjoy your “mansions of gold” psycho.
A rather literal interpretation of Hell. Honestly if it were just fire and lava eventually you’d get used to it. The truth is no one really knows what hell is, the only thing we know is that it is a state of being completely detached from God. No goodness no beauty no peace no joy. Another interesting view of hell is the purgatory that CS Lewis writes about in The Great Divorce. Though fiction is portrays a place where people drift ever further apart and never feel truly comfortable. Read the book to get a better Idea. I choose to be a Christian not because I’m afraid of hell, though I am a bit I guess, but rather because the Son of God, God Incarnate, chose to die so that I could be closer to God and hear his voice. As far as sin is concerned I try not to. Not because I’m told that sinning is bad, but rather because Christ took upon himself all the sin that ever was and ever will be. If I can avoid heaping anymore pain on someone who would die for me I will.
Hm, 11 year old eh. Well. Hm. I will pray that your faith will develop as mine did. I used to make judgmental statements too. But remember that the scripture says “Judge not lest ye be judged.” In my prayers Nobama.
@ Talisman
Aye, an unfortunate fact that many Christians are unaware of… Fire and Brimstone, Lake of Fire hell comes from two sources: a book written by a man named Dante Alighieri, and the curse “I hope you burn in hell”; this comes from an ancient Jewish curse invoking the fires of Gehenna (the Valley of Hinnom), a garbage dump in ancient Israel that was said to burn so brightly it turned the skies red at night. One of the most important aspects of death to an ancient Israelite was a proper burial. To be burned with the garbage was an unbelievable nightmare, and so its imagery was used often to scare people into good behavior.
Is the CS Lewis interpretation you speak of the one where you live in London, and everyday is rainy? And everyday, a plane leaves for heaven, but you never go…
OH sure. God doesnt want to save 50% of the worlds population right. Non-Chistains will be saved If the believe in GOD THE FATHER.
if yous read your silly hooman bible
you god guy very mean in most of it, murdering babies and causing plagues
what make you hoomans thinks he wants to even save 10% of you%
jake, anyone under the age of accountability (age of knowing right from wrong) which is said to be 12, is not acountable for sin, because they didn’t know it was wrong. and for future reference, we are ALL sinners. look up Dr. Vick Young. he may be able to answer any questions anyone may have. and which film? Passion of Christ? ya good movie.
no, the film Jesus Camp. he states it. read the posts above before you post.
Vick Young seams to be your roll model mate. Every “christian” seams to have a roll model. Maybe you should broaden your horizons my friend. <.<
I really do wonder what you think of all of those television evangelists out there.
*role model
first of all he is my preacher not my role model. you said roll model and it is supposed to be role model. i am a Christian. Oh and I’m 11 so what the heck is an evangelist? anyway, my role model is God. there are views of Vick Young that not even i agree with. but this is all true not an opinion. if you don’t believe now, it will come back to bite you in the but later.
oh and i’m the same nobama as earlier
oh and by the way, you misunderstood the “of the flesh” thing. it means don’t dance to glorify yourself, but dance to glorify God. the parable’s might have got ya too.
Why, because it’s telling the truth?
That’s conservative logic for you…
I STRIKE THEE DOWN FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH! And this lady is part of a cult, even other Christians don’t accept her as being part of Christianity. Lighten up. It’s just a picture.
Christianity is a cult as well, you know.
So are Judaism, Buddhism, Scientology, Hinduism, Islam, and I can’t think of any other religion.
You would be hard pressed to actually prove that every religion is a cult. Considering you can leave some religions, like Christianity.
Like I said, Christianity is most certainly a cult. Cult is simply defined as any group following a certain belief structure, and usually with some sort of initiation or semblance of membership. The military is a cult, one I am a proud member of. It’s only through modern syntax that we have assigned a negative meaning to the word “cult,” due to the nature with which the media portrays particularly nutso cults. But in its base definition, cult isn’t a bad thing at all, and calling religion a cult is simply a matter of defining how they operate (indoctrination, for example), not of defining their intentions.
What… cogent analysis of the word ‘cult.’ The bit about the military, and being a proud member, um, brilliant?! I love it when people take the argument to a different level like that. The heart of PK, you has it.
Just by your word choice, I would like to let you know that I am now a fan of yours. Well put, by the both of you.
Well put, in that sense I would agree totally. Unfortunately I have been a victim of the media on the meaning of the word “cult”. In that sense though any following is then a cult? So long as it has some means of initiation?
Pretty much, I’d agree with that assessment. Now, you COULD get into the nitty gritty about numbers and structure, and all that jazz. My collegiate social psychology class went into great depth about the essentials for a cult to really form, things like the charismatic leader, the isolation, the process of getting almost brand new recruits to start recruiting as well (making them teach what they’ve learned helps them form a deeper bond with the teachings), that sort of stuff. All of which, by the way, the military has/does.
So, you could say that a simple “following” isn’t necessarily a cult, such as 5 year olds who follow a 6 year old simply because he’s the biggest. But were the 6 year old to make a clubhouse where he and his followers spent all their time and recruited other 5 year olds to join the group, then you could be getting closer… 
Well done.
Agree one hundred percent. The isolation is but an aspect that comes as a result, the leader usually isolates his group at times, but are they not part of the group even when they are in public? That is just me being a nit pick so never mind that.
I am a proud christian, and I find this woman terrible.
Good statement, not necessarily the right place?
Or, as we say on PK: “Nesting Fail”
Same thing in fail blog, I was actually asking him how he felt on the subject.
Oh. Oops. My bad.
Meh its all fine, I was a bit ambiguous in my intentions anyways.
Um… isn’t pride a sin?
yes, pride is a sin.
Amen to that! Christians can be bad and stupid just like everyone, we all know that; but lets not let this take away from Jesus’ glory, don’t let one pea spoil the glorious pod
but it isn’t one pea, it’s the whole flaming bushel, and they’re also the loudest and most recognized –
Ya, its best to not provoke his type. They may get to spewing hellfire and stuff for countering Christianity. He has to realize it is more than just one, it is more like 1000 of them. Granted 1000/10000000 is small, 1000 itself is still big and capable of growing.
i don’t even know what to say to that other than, i’m not going to let that bother me. all i can say is your wrong.
how do you know that is all? who knows? could be most of Christianity for all we know.
oh and for future reference3 i’m not Catholic, i’m non-denominational. (and am i crazy or were there only like 300 comment’s last night?)
Definitely crazy.
No there was about 800 two days ago.
Um, isn’t pride a sin?
Then what is the difference between a cult and a community? Or a cult and an organization?
purpose, entry requirements…. i belong to aarp – it’s an organization – members have things in common, but no body is required to take any sort of oath, just reach a certain age…
i live in a community – 40,000+, i have things in common with some, but not everything; the only requirement to to belonging to this community is to live within it’s city limits; a cult typically requires some type of isolation from others, demands that members not be in contact with family and friends if they disagree with the group, cults also usually have a single leader (typically charismatic) who decides how the group lives (code of conduct, etc) cults also use punishment such as shunning to control the behavior of members…..
I used to say that Christianity was not a cult because it didn’t have an inner circle with secret knowledge. Then I heard about the Irish report on the rape, beatings, and systematic abuse of children in R.C. schools… and that one woman in Canada who was regularly raped as a child by her parish priest, and that the church had been getting complaints about him for fifteen years previously and just kept moving him. They don’t have doctrinal secrets — unless you count the policy written by the current Pope excommunicating anyone who admitted that there was sexual abuse by priests. So maybe the Roman Catholic church is a cult. On the other hand… They commit crimes on a grand scale, extort money from the gullible by threatening them with magical curses and by promising to lift the curse if you follow all their instructions, conspire to conceal despicable crimes by their members…. So maybe they’re an organized crime family under “Ratzo, My-Way-or-the-Highway, il Papa.” Thoughts? Wouldn’t the R.C.’s consistent actions and policy count as racketeering under U.S. law?
Inner circle?
Secret knowledge?
Of course- the Vatican.
Racketeering…I love it!
Um, you don’t seem to be very well-informed on religions. Or on the definition of the word “cult.”
The difference between a cult and a religion? Political clout.
I would dare say that all religions may be viewed as a cult.
Christianity is a widespread religion, really. A “cult” is a different worldview kind of sect that claims to be Christian, but has differing views about Jesus, Life, Death, so on and so forth. Just to clarify.
A “cult” is not strictly related to Christianity, nor do they all claim to be Christian. Sometimes they are just a CULT, and don’t claim to be dependent on other religions.
And eddie- if you clicked this comment, goodnight! It’s three in the morning here; I’m out.
That movie, scared the crap out of me!
I’ve never been happier to not be associated with a religious organization.
And the kids in that movie has the most soulless eyes i’ve ever seen!
If you thought that was scary (and it was, though I do not agree the kids had soulless eyes ffs) you ought to see “homegrown Jihad”. Or even this short video (link behind my name) from Palestinian children’s television. That’ll put hair on your a**. Christians aren’t the ones going to be suicide bombers, no matter what the crazy Jesus camp lady says.
“Christians aren’t the ones going to be suicide bombers, no matter what the crazy Jesus camp lady says.” Well with the mainstream anti-abortion thing I can agree with that.
I will have to check those videos out. but I will admit most religious fundamentalists scare me.
Actually, fundamentalists really arnt that scary, except for the Muslim ones. I can’t think of any christian, hindu, jew, or buddist who would kill for their religion. The fact is, despite what you see in Hollywood, radicals just tend to be creepy, not violent.
Thank you, that is so true.
No, it isn’t. Google the words ‘radical christian terrorist’, you ignorant fool.
All “radical Christian terrorists” are denounce by mainstream Christianity, can you say that about muslim terrorist?
Yes, actually. I’m pretty sure mainstream Muslim leaders denounce their own terrorists.
They do. The Muslim Council here in the UK abhor
the terrorists’ activities.
Never hear a peep out of them in the msm. If they were so against it they should be screaming it from the rooftops. Now, I know that it could be dangerous to their health… so I will give them that. You don’t have Christians putting out “fatwah” or whatever it’s called against other Christians because they buck the radicals.
Google Captain Gordon James Klingenschmitt. Here he is praying for the death of Reverend Barry Lynn and Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation:
“One-Minute Prayer: Let us pray. Almighty God, today we pray imprecatory prayers from Psalm 109 against the enemies of religious liberty, including Barry Lynn and Mikey Weinstein, who issued press releases this week attacking me personally. God, do not remain silent, for wicked men surround us and tell lies about us. We bless them, but they curse us. Therefore find them guilty, not me. Let their days be few, and replace them with Godly people. Plunder their fields, and seize their assets. Cut off their descendants, and remember their sins, in Jesus’ name. Amen.”
Yes, you do. Anti-abortionists vs. doctors, Christian or otherwise, and the people who work for/with/near them.
This anti-abortion thing is soooo overblown. It’s NOT condoned and it’s even very publicly condemed by mainstream Christianity. These are random crazies and not representative at all.
@ Trolldujour under (or above) me
This is the perfect example of my other reply to you. Anti-abortion terrorists are overblown? Guess what else is overblown: Islamic terrorists.
Why do you think you never hear a peep out of them? Could it be because whatever shitty news feed is going into your head focuses on BAD news and not good? Or that you’re just not looking in the right place?
99% of Muslims are not terrorists, just as 99% of Christians are not. It’s the vocal >1% that get all the attention, though, and it’s a sad state of affairs.
yes. yes you can. most Muslims aren’t fundamentalists, and terrorism is most definitely NOT embraced by the mainstream Islamic community. they’re still just as human as any other religion following people, they’re still people. some are going to be violent, and most are going to abhor it. think about what you say next time, you look like an idiot.
It is so untrue. Some Christians think non-Chistians should not be allowed to live in the USA and yet others believe we have no rights under the constitution. Ex- President Bush was a prime example.
When did Bush ever say that? I don’t remember that.
August 27, 1987 – It was Bush Senior, not Shrub. He said that he didn’t think atheists should be considered as citizens. The founding fathers must be so proud….
*cough* The Covenanters *cough*
*splutter* Crusades, The Zealots, *cough*
“ahem” self-hating Western postmodern pseudo-intellectuals “cough” Saladin the Magnificent “sigh” Turkish Islamic Imperialism “ahem” people who only regurgitate mindless catch phrases rather than coming up with original thoughts “lawdy lawdy”
Careful there, s-phus, that uphill battle is on a slippery slope.
Their point is, that all religions are equal… in how full of shit they are.
Also “lawdy lawdy?” You do realize that’s a double edge sword you’re swinign’ there.
Well, I could write “Bismallah, al rahman, al rahim”, but I have a funny feeling no one would understand.
Go figure…
But someone got the sisyphus thingie! I’m SO excited!
And my point is….it is a never-ending source of amusement to me that many atheists, agnostics and extheists condemn the religious for their intolerance but are absolutely intolerant of religion-especially their birth religions.
There has to be a great truth there…I wonder if I can figure it out.
“it is a never-ending source of amusement to me that many atheists, agnostics and extheists condemn the religious for their intolerance but are absolutely intolerant of religion-especially their birth religions.”
As an atheist I’ve gotta disagree there. Just about all atheists are entirely tolerant of all religions (up until the point they screw someone over). Most may be quite verbally opposed to it, but never do anything to stop someone else from practicing (unless it screws someone over). The reason most Ex-theists are very loudly opposed to their birth religion is that once you’ve experienced the whole deal you tend to be much more knowledgeable about the crap that goes on in there.
Our definitions of Tolerance may be different here though, goddamn English…
I’m certainly not Theist (though I may be a Deist); but one thing about atheists that makes me laugh is that most are still locked into a binary mindset. “EITHER the religion around me is true, OR all religion is false.”
Personally, I lean towards “There probably is a Divine Something, but no religion on earth actually understands it well enough to speak intelligently about it.”
Except maybe Buddhists. They’ve never had evangelists, or wars over doctrine. Buddhists are pretty cool in my book.
That’s why I’m Agnostic. It’s the perfect spiritual choice for procrastinators.
i tried becoming an agnostic once, but kept forgetting to fill out the application
Well its more of you are waiting for proof. True you don’t do much searching, meh I guess you are procrastinators.
I’ll get back to you on that.
@Emperor — actually when i was young i did a lot of searching for what fit and made me feel whole. here i am decades later, even more content in my faith; but i am still a procrastinator with so many things
Just remember we are never to old or too young to continue that search. Another thing, it is easy to grow old on the outside, it is fun to remain young on the inside. I find being a loose Catholic, and questioning the world I perceive has helped me grow tremendously as a person.
hahahaha… agreed.
that is what tickles my funny bone about so many evangelical types — that if such an entity exists that was able to create the universe and all that it contains, how the heck could the human brain be able to not only ‘see’ all of it, but comprehend such an entity fully? not too many years ago people swore up and down on their salvation that the sun circled the earth, that the earth was flat, that there were monsters in the seas that would eat them if they sailed too far from land, that if you tossed an accused witch in water and she floated, she was a witch (never mind she was more fluff than not) but if she sank she wasn’t, that there was nothing smaller than what could be detected by the human eye…. yet they ‘knew’ all there was to know about their god who created everything?
things have to be broken down into small, simple peices so that your audience can understand them – hence the simple stories in their book. the more you learn, the more you realize there is more to learn.
The quest of science. Always seeking never finishing.
Science changes all the time, and no, they didn’t know everything about him. They don’t claim they know everything about him in the bible. It is a choice of faith.
“how the heck could the human brain be able to not only ’see’ all of it, but comprehend such an entity fully?” – Am I understanding this right? You think we can see and understand the entire universe? That gave me a laugh!
No, DuJour, you are, in fact, getting exactly the opposite meaning from what Bad Fairie said.
thank you pm
You betcha!
@ emperor – not waiting for proof that your belief structure works for some, nor am i waiting for the rapture or any other such proof – why would someone like me need proof of something than doens’t matter? that point only holds water if you think everyone is supposed to be christian or wants to be christian for that matter…
Oh, no I was merely making a comment on the quick research I had done on agnostics in wiki. That you are awaiting knowledge before doing anything. I am not trying to force anything upon you. I do not even fully listen to my own religion. I don’t think everyone want to be Christian. Though is something doesn’t matter are you really agnostic or actually atheist. I found in their definitions that agnostics acknowledge something is there and are awaiting proof so that they have actual knowledge of it. Atheists just believe it is all wrong, then they branched to pantheists and such. I hope I did not offend.
i see, didn’t get where you were coming from before.
Glad I was able to clear it up without causing any damages.
.
Tolerance is a tough word, as it depends on the person defining it. That, I feel is why we have broken it into tolerance levels.
I hate to burst your bubble partner but there’s no such thing as a “birth religion.” We are all born atheists. we have to be taught to believe in God. Those of us who learn to think for ourselves, grow up and return to a natural state. one in which the brain is actually used.
state. One … You want to argue that any religious person does not use their brain, and that it is natural to not believe in God. Though that last part sounds off even to me, you are correct, we are born without a religion. We learn our religion, just as we learn how to interact with our society. We learn our language, culture and history. That is what we do, we learn things, we must develop. This helps shape us into who we are. People who learn a religion, have the values of the religion instilled in them, if they choose to continue following it. People who don’t learn a religion often adopt the values of the society in which they are a part of. In rare cases they develop their own set of values.
I am not saying that religion is as necessary as all of those, not in the least bit at all. All I am saying that it is unfortunate that you lump all religious people into a group that does not think for themselves. One thing I must add is that in Christianity, you are encouraged to ask questions of your religion. This is important as many teachings are parables and not true stories. You are allowed to question the validity of your God, He only asks you to repent in the end. Well pending His actual existence. Pascals wager comes into play here.
Please if you want to represent the agnostic or atheist, please do so in a better manner.
I don’t need to “represent” anyone or anything my friend. I am what I am. A thinking human being who doesn’t believe in talking snakes, magic apples or human sacrifice. A person who spent many years as a passionately committed Christian. Pouring over the “word”. Devouring it daily. (cover to cover several times) in a genuine attempt to learn how to walk as a “man of God.”
Unfortunately, what I learned was that the being described in that book is not an omnipotent, benevolent creator, worthy of worship, but instead is a demented, genocidal, megalomaniac, worthy only of fear and loathing.
As far as the Morality issue you chose to bring up goes. Every single nonbeliever that I personally associate with holds a higher personal standard than any Christian I ever met.
Please don’t take any of this as a personal attack. I have nothing against you or any other of the “faithful.” Having said that however. It is my personal opinion that religion is the single worst evil ever to befall mankind.
Cheers
Stephen
Due to your tone, I could not be offended at all. I thank you for presenting yourself well.
Those stories were just meant to be lessons not direct translation. I myself personally find attempting to read the “Good Book” from beginning to end and then attempting to live my life by its guidelines a little weird. On the whole the only lesson from the Bible I actually took to heart was the Golden Rule. Nothing more, yes as a Catholic I am told the Jesus suffered for my sins, etc etc. I am allowed to question the validity of this myself, which I do often. I just think that regardless of one’s faith background or lack there of you would be hard pressed to find a person with better values than to treat any person as well as you would like to be treated. I understand how you could dislike the Bible and its fantastical stories. (I would like to use the fantasy definition of that word in this instance.) One reason I am not a Bible belter, but rather a loose following Catholic.
I feel that almost with anything, that if you immerse yourself into it fully, you will find faults with it and grow tired of it. A great thing about atheism is that you can never immerse yourself too much. You can’t over-rationalize everything, as you can always break it down further to a more reasonable response.
Morals based on what a book written 2000 years ago seem a bit outdated. That is why I only took the lessons and not the outlining of how one should act. I daresay my morals would not differ that much from thine own. I respect elders, apply the Golden rule, generally value life and the time I have given. A more devout Christian would probably have substituted much about Christ, what he did, how he said I should act and such. Though as I said, I much rather take the parables for what they were, lessons on how one should act, not on how one must act. So in that sense I do what I feel is right in the current situation, not based on an outline given to me by my faith.
Cheers good sir,
Emperor.
@Stephen Van Tuyl — just came back from checking your website — most impressive photos! where was the shot of the columbia gorge taken? it looks familiar, but….80 miles of scenery is a bit much to remember of the top of ‘my’ brain…
@bad fairie- Thanks for the visit. I appreciate it! The photo in question was taken at the look-out near Multnomah Falls.
@emperor
“One thing I must add is that in Christianity, you are encouraged to ask questions of your religion. ”
i so beg to differ on this — in more than on instance, from more that one denomination, i’ve been told flat out by elders that i didn’t need to worry whatever i was asking questions about.
@stephen – thought it was from over in that area, but i’s been a heck of a long time since i ws last there
@Faire I didn’t say you would get answers.
Um it may just be that I am speaking from my personal religion (Catholic) but I have asked questions, mostly being told that they were meant as lessons not true accounts. (Old testament)
So yes I was encouraged to ask questions.
Just to stir the pot Emperor. Try asking this question. What kind of monster would orchestrate an atrocity like Passover?
I will, but I have a feeling it was to strike down the unworthy, which always puzzled me how God goes through a makeover in the New Testament. He wants so many people to come to Christianity but kills so many Egyptians. I can assume that he was setting up for the 10 commandments. You know the false idols. Though I will ask this question.
Listen to what you just said my friend.”it was to strike down the unworthy”. Do you honestly believe that all those children were evil? That every family from which the first born was taken were evil? Is it not more likely that the majority were just normal people like you and I, going through their daily lives struggling to raise their children and pay the bills? It was by Pharoah’s order that the Children of Israel were held captive. The people had no say in the matter. Yet God, in his “infinite wisdom” decided to slaughter all those innocent children and bring horrendous grief and suffering into the hearts of all those parents because he was pissed off at one man. That’s mass genocide any way you look at it my friend, and the evil rests with the perpetrator of the crime. Think about this while you ponder the “pat answer” you get when you ask your question.
Of course I do not believe that. I am stabbing at the response I will get. You would think such a powerful being would be able to do what Zeus did daily and just zap him with a nice bolt of lightning. Not like they had windows back then.
“Is it not more likely that the majority were just normal people like you and I, going through their daily lives struggling to raise their children and pay the bills?”
I appreciate that I may have fooled you. I am but a 20 year old. Just a phone bill and school bills at the moment. I hope that I have presented myself well enough up until this point to actually make me seem wise beyond my years. I hope this does not discredit my future contributions but I had to set it straight.
Cheers,
Emperor.
*gasp* The emperor is a fraud!! He’s just a boy!
(Just kidding. Yeah, you sound more mature than your average 20 year old.)
Thanks. I just hope I don’t get discredited in the future. I like my current standing.
No-one is going to discredit you my friend. Your opinion carries just as much weight as mine or anybody’s. Just make sure it is actually your opinion and not that of your priest, teacher or parents. What you choose to believe in or not to believe in is your decision alone and should be born of intelligent research and use of your logical mind. Ask questions and demand real answers. Don’t let them feed you statements like ” The human mind can’t comprehend the ways of God.” or “you just have to take it on faith.” These are nothing more than “blankets” they use to throw over inconvenient questions for which they have no intelligent answers. Embrace your doubts and above all, listen to your own inner voice. Our conversation tells me that you are an intelligent man. Use that!
Keep smiling
Stephen
Thanks, and I have nothing but the same to say about you as well. I thoroughly enjoyed out discussion here and greatly value the input you well, put forth.
Thanks again.
Emperor.
@Emperor
“Those stories were just meant to be lessons not direct translation.”
Unfortunately, that is where so many disparities in modern Christianity come from. Nobody can decide what anything was meant to be, or what it is meant for. Some decide the Story of Creation to be literal, as I’m sure you know. Others call it allegorical (I actually had a very interesting lesson in high school that pointed out how similarly the 7-days method ties with the Earth’s actual development). In the end, everyone thinks one thing is right and another is wrong, and we draw our borders to separate from others. This is also the reason for so much of the manipulation in religion. Such is the nature of the task of trying to interpret a thousands-year-old book.
This is why I (a former Catholic and avid theology student, now Idon’tknowwhat, also 20 years old
) have faith (keyword) in science. Nothing is sacred, and scrutiny and interpretation are encouraged; there is also no possibility of a (seriously scientific) splinter sect to diverge and wage war over which theory is true or not true. It’s happening now and it is empirical, so there is very little chance to distort it because of time and lack of evidence.
This is why I bounce back and forth between the idea of religion (not the religious) being, maybe not evil, but flawed in nature. It is too open to interpretation and manipulation, and invokes too many strong emotions to be a valid explanation of reality.
I kind of forgot where I was going with this post, because it’s late and I got very little sleep last night. I hope it’s food for thought for you and others, though.
You are quite right, there is much debate on the literal acceptance of the Bible. Personally, when a book offers up a story of creation that clashes with common sense, well I have trouble accepting it. I trust my scientific mind over my spiritual one many a times. (For Seth) What we need more of is science.
I know that dinosaurs existed, it is tangible proof, had the bible mentioned that somehow dinosaurs were there but killed off by the will of god quickly, well that is more plausible. Though you would still have to pluck my eyes out to prevent me from seeing the wool. I therefore accept most stories from that book as lessons rather than recitations of actual events. If these hardcore religious types used some scientific and logical deduction, or if they had any interest in the actual truth at all rather than blind faith; well we wouldn’t have this nice debate to discuss how people interpret the bible.
I believe in both science and genesis 1. Nobody writes a scientific report in verse form: it’s a poem for goodness sake…
Science tells us what happened, the poem tells us why…
I would say the poem more of postulates as to why, we don’t want to sound pious and proclaim we got it right. As in all science let us leave room for error.
@AC
Well, they didn’t have the scientific method back then.
This, I think, is another example of what I was talking about. I do not find Genesis 1 to be a poem more than just a creation story meant to be pretty and meaningful like every other creation story, Christian, Navajo, Hindu, or any other, because they simply did not have the methods back then.
Who knows!
Well aye… Every culture has a creation story just like a load of them have flood stories (In Greek stories it’s “Deucalion’s ark”)… If all we get out of all of them is that “God created the Earth” and “God judged but showed mercy to the good man” then that’s not so bad…
@AC
Hehe, I agree, that’s not so bad at all. I think we can leave it to those two messages and not create an organization around it, you know?
(Although I think the Earth was just a happy accident… but that’s a discussion for another time).
Now then, it’s almost 4 AM, and I need to be getting to sleep. Nice talking with you all.
You guys should get a chat/IRC channel going.
So did you flunk history class or try to claim religious exemption to keep from learning just how violent and death-obsessed Xity is?
… Another one, it is Christianity not Xity.
double fail: it’s xianity not xity
nothing personal in the following emp, just a good spot to either stir up a bees nest or put out a smoldering fire
X= greek letter chi often seen in ancient manuscripts intwined with P (greek letter for rho) which are the first 2 letters christ in greek. emperor constantine I added this symbol to flag
)
for more details see:
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram} so this isn’t an effort by the secular to remove christ from christmas (even though it is a pagan holiday that the rc co-opted to entice followers
Oh, I know but I made a reference above, in my conversation with braak about why it is important to see Christ in Christianity. I compared it to changing Allah’s name to S-h, S representing the most important part of the name. I have no problem with it in general. Though if you are going to attack Christianity (not you fairy referencing the other guy) have enough respect for the religion and its followers to call it by its real name. Would be as disrespectful as to call atheists just theists.
wouldn’t be disrespectful to call an atheist a theist, but it would be kind of ignorant since they are two different things:
.
atheist: someone who denies the existence of god
.
theist: one who believes in the existence of a god or gods
.
whereas using an x in place of christ in long words is accepted by most as a shortcut in writing and has no connotations other than being quicker to write out
I’m with Emperor on this one. A lot of Christians don’t like seeing the X in there. We’re not partial to having our deity abbreviated.
Absolutely right, Eric. The idea that it carries no connotations is ridiculous.
I have known people who used it specifically because it offended their atheist sensibilities to type out the word “Christ” in “Christianity.” No, that’s not everyone but it’s quite often used in a derogatory fashion.
I made the right reference used the wrong wording. It wouldn’t be disrespectful so much as ignorant. Not putting the Christ in Christianity is basically talking about something we all know as Christianity but treating it as not worth to say the whole thing. So actually in a way it is disrespectful. Oh and the reference I was going for was taking the a from an atheist makes him into something he is not. Taking Christ from Christianity makes it something it is not, but still references the original religion.
Ummmmmm, FYI, The Crusades were done by Catholics, not christians. Yes most everybody puts Christians all in one catogory with the catholics, but there is a huge difference. The fact that we use the same religiouse book (sort of) dose not matter.
They were the only Christians around at the time…
And how dose the fact that you base your beliefs on the exact same doctrine “Not matter?”
“The fact that we use the same religiouse [sic] book (sort of) dose [sic] not matter.” You mean, that Catholic document voted into canon by a council of bishops called the Bible? Have fun reading the letter to Barnabas with its multi-anal rabbits if you’re so anti-Catholic. Oh, and Catholic means “universal,” as in the Universal Christian Church. Are you saying is that there were no Christians until a Catholic monk decided to break from the church 1500 years after Christ? Oh wait, you must be claiming you don’t believe in Catholic (as opposed to Nestorian, Arian, Montanist) doctrines like the trinity and the virgin birth?
Read your history. You forget about the Copts and the Orthodox Christians who were busy holding off the muslim invasions of eastern europe at the same time.
Yeah, but those sects of Christianity haven’t led to any subsequent religions. Nearly all Christian faiths outside Ethiopia, Greece, and Russia are descended from Protestantism by way of Catholicism.
Wait — You do not consider Catholics to be Christians?
Christianity is the umbrella term. Catholics are definitely Christians and were certainly Christians at the time of the crusades (~1100 AD). I think most people put Catholics into the same category of Christians, which is correct — not the other way around, like you say. Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and early forms of Christianity (not under the purview of the Roman Empire) are still correctly lumped under the category of “Christian.” Maybe I’m missing something, and I’m not trying to be a jerk. I just wanted to clarify that.
Maybe expecting you to know a particle of the history you claim is too much to ask.
The schism you make so much of, with Martin Luther rejecting the Diet of Worms and essentially creating the distinction between Catholic and Protestant, happened AFTER the Crusades. “Christians” don’t get to duck responsibility by foisting it off on the “Catholics” because at the time there was no such distinction.
Perhaps they can use it to dodge responsibility for The Inquisition? That would make them responsible for only about half as much torture and suffering
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
boom. gotcha.
we have such tools at our disposal as the element of suprise,
So, there were no Christians until Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation? In fact, Christianity is a religion that’s younger than Islam by about 800 years?
the nicean (sp?) council established which books to incorporate into the christian bible (ca 325) and christianity started with the prostilytizing (sp?) of the 70 disciples. granted, they were mostly jews, but they were seen as a seperate sect, not part of main stream judaism. christianity started being viewed as a seperate faith after the deaths of the original apostles.
link 1: {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed}
link 2: {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity}
Yes, but I was responding to the claim that Catholics aren’t Christians; by implication, there were no Christians until a non-Catholic Christian church came about. Good research though.
goes back to when i was a kid and so many of the mainline xian churches were claiming catholics weren’t xian… didn’t get their logic then and don’t now…. i knew you were tossing that in there to jab the non-thinker, but figured i’d toss some factoids in to heat the water a bit
and i always give sources when i can, stops some of the trolls from going on tirades about how they get asked for sources & cites yet are never given any. if i’m going to argue with a troll, i want it to be over something constructive, interesting, or at least new
looking at this comment from the outside leaves me baffled! differences in doctrine doesn’t determine the root of your faith does it? isn’t everyone who follows your christ for ‘salvation’ a christian be default? or how do you determine who is a christian and who isn’t if not by belief in your christ? and if catholics aren’t christians, why do so many protestant churches have the same dogma all the way down until they hit on the pope? they even appear to toe the line politically?
not slamming anyone here, just totally confused by what appears to be broken logic
Um, The Mulism who commit suicide bombings are breaking the laws of Islam. Just as how the Christians who bomb abortion clincis are breaking the 10 commandments.
Every religion has it’s crazies. I’ve my fair share of radical Jews (some in my own family), radicalism is not confined to one religion, and they are all guilty of perpatuating hate.
Mulism? (^_^)
I think that describes most religions, if you mean being about as willing to listen to reasoned opinion as your average mule. Hee-haw!
When was the last time a Christian bombed abortion clinics? Just because Christians are against abortion dose not mean that they get violent about it. And I do notice that it is Islamic religiouse leaders who are encouraging people to blow themselves up. I ahve never even heard of Christians doing this.
“Just because Christians are against abortion dose not mean that they get violent about it”
Sadly, no.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
Radical Christians can be just as violent as Radical Muslims.
Actually it’s surprisingly common (Not suicide bombings, but bombings nonetheless)… The majority of Christians abhor it but there is a very devout minority who think that they are doing “God’s Work” in killing a doctor to save fetuses.
Why kill the doctor? They’re just doing their job. Why not kill the mother. If the fetus is going to die anyway, let it go down with the ship.
Nice one, Albert
You want Cristian bombing? Look up Northern Island in the past 100 years
Not done in the name of Christianity.
WTF? It is indeed done in the name of Christianity, since each side is convinced the other is going to hell!
I recall it in the 90s. And I’m pretty sure abortion doctors have been murdered even more recently than that (as in, within the last few years)
Yes, they DO get VERY violent.
Have a link.
no, actually, mainstream islamic leaders don’t encourage the booms and bangs. you have circular logic, my friend.
Actually, some translations of the Ten Commandments say that “Thou shalt not kill another Jew” and there are tons of lines in both the Bible and Quran where the god is ordering X Y or Z group put to death. Ie. Death penalty for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), and cussing out your parents (Leviticus 20:9).
And fully agreed that every religion has whackjobs who go too far.
Religitards.
The original Hebrew text of the ten commandments is “thou shall not murder”. Period. It does say it’s ok to kill this group or that one.
Okay, stop being reasonable! You’re going to ruin someone’s prejudiced view of Judaism!
that’s the only comment I’ve seen yet that’s absolutely true, when seen in any religious light.
“I can’t think of any christian, hindu, jew, or buddist who would kill for their religion.”
What about those Christian fundamentalists who blow up Planned Parenthood centers and clinics who offer abortions?
Or the KKK, who are self-described as a fundamentalist Christian organization?
Just because you hear about them less often in the news doesn’t mean they aren’t there. It’s not the religion that makes people violent; it’s the person’s mental instability. Religion just gives some nutters justification – like those people that say Satan/the aliens/Barney the Dinosaur told them to kill people.
Wait wait wait, we all know that Barney the Dinosaur has been quotes several times telling people to kill.
*Quoted*…
agreed. he is the Charles Manson of hallucinations.
So when was the last Planned Parenthood/abortion clinic bombing?
January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota. Okay, that’s not a bombing.
December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd’s clinic in Albuquerque. Wait, wait, no, that was arson.
September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women’s Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinc. Okay, that one wasn’t even really an abortion clinic, I obviously need to dig deeper here…
June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages. Ah, there we go, there’s your answer.
Hmm, I had only heard of a couple of those. Okay, so let’s be generous and assume there’s one a year, with a death maybe every ten years. (The last death I can think of was as a result of the Sandy Springs bombing, and that was well over a decade ago.)
Now, in the same time frame, how many religiously-, ethically-, and/or politically-motivated Muslim suicide bombings occurred? (For bonus points, exclude Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan.)
Just because one group is more evil than the other does not mean that the lesser is good ^_^
nicely stated Amadeus.
cheers to the name as well (assuming it’s a mozart reference)
In the united states (given thats the only location covered in examples above)? One, assuming you’ll count plane hijackings as bombings- or 3 if you count them as separate incidences.
You forget, years earlier another attempt was made on the world trade centers. The vans in the basement. Which Osama took credit for.
Interesting note: the ***holes who were responsible for that are now rotting in American jails. What’s Bin Laden doing?
If I knew, do you think you would necessarily have to ask that question? I would have called the US embassy in Canada and told them. Then this conversation would look redundant.
Well those are only the attacks on buildings. The harassment of the employees, the threats, etc is pretty much ongoing.
And just because Muslims do it more often doesn’t exempt Xity from the “deadly cult” label.
Wow, three people getting very defensive. I was just interested in making a comparison.
There’s a family planning clinic near my house that always has one lone old man picketing it. (Sitting in a lawnchair outside, actually) There are more than one old guy that take part. Here’s the funny thing for me: they carry different signs, all of them in bad repair. Letters are missing, and it’s impossible to read some of them. These guys are here rain or shine, so the question I have to ask is: if this topic is so important to you that you’ll brave bad weather to make your point, why isn’t it important enough to you that you’ll repair your sign, or make a new one?!?
Not everyone has the resources of a multi-million dollar business at their disposal, nor the talents of their Pro Bowl-friends to help with signmaking.
Or ninjas.
or wal-mart, sharpies, some poster board and a piece of wood.. total cost: <$20
Throw in a dictionary to spell words right. Misspelled words on your sign are the downfall of even the most dedicated protester.
Wall Fly said it. My guess is these guys are being paid by a forced pregnancy group to sit here, and they don’t really care enough to get a $1.39 Sharpie and color in the letters that fell off their cardboard sign.
Er, is “We’re less violent than Muslim extremists” really your idea of a high moral standard?
between 1970 and the mid ’90s sectarian violence between 2 flavours of Christianity, led to the deaths of more than 3000 people in Northern Ireland, Great Britain, and other countries in continental Europe.
question- when the laws weren’t enforced as well as they are here, or people are left on their own in the face of hatred and zealots, what tends to happen? more bombings/killings/zealotry.
““I can’t think of any christian, hindu, jew, or buddist who would kill for their religion.”
What about those Christian fundamentalists who blow up Planned Parenthood centers and clinics who offer abortions?
Or the KKK, who are self-described as a fundamentalist Christian organization?”
In this instance the kkk are using a religion to justify their notions, not killing for their religion. I don’t think it appropriate to use this group as it is denounced by everyone including the religion which they claim to be an organization of.
His response still stands true, as you did not mention a killing based on the stated religions.
Though you are right, religious killings happen all the time, for every religion, they are just not as well broadcasted.
News today out of Ireland that a group of Protestants grabbed clubs, went into the Catholic part of town, and beat to death a 49 year old Roman Catholic man for the crime of being Catholic.
Damn Catholics and their hokey religions and ancient weapons. They must be stopped!!!
-
Honestly though, that’s sick. I am not Catholic, don’t agree with them, and have some serious issues with their creed and doctrine, but no one deserves that.
See now that response would have been more appropriate. Thanks PortlandMark.
You do have a point… I was thinking of that particular group’s rhetoric (they claim to be doing “God’s work”) more than their actual motivation. I blame it on being half-awake and on allergy medication at the time.
Anyway, the anti-abortion bombings are entirely religion-based, and often condoned/supported by religious groups. Therefore, that part of my post is still appropriate.
Hindus have killed for their “religion” (loaded term in respect to Hinduism) before. See the independence of India.
There have been more than enough cases of Christian violence stated.
The current Israeli PM would gladly kill a Muslim.
I don’t know of any Buddhists that have killed in the name of Buddhism, but it’s not normally classified as a religion, anyway.
Even those damned Buddhists, who are lighting themselves on fire!
>.>
Well, that’s another matter. But it is true, even the teachings of Buddah have been perverted into weapons of cruelty (ancient china for the most part.)
All religions have blood on their hands. Each of the three big religions had at least one period in history in which they have killed thousands or millions because God told them to do so.
Well, Sri Lanka = hindus and buddhists
Europe = colonial history (millions of deaths) and two world wars. And we in the west certainly make sure to arm the world.
What about fundamentalist Christians who bomb abortion clinics in the US? They also apparently create “hit lists” of doctors whom they plan to kill. That is scary too.
They’re no scary? Seriously? Because there’s a story in the news right now of a several people who murdered a young girl because of their religion. And another of a family attempting to murder their cancer stricken son because of their religion. The mother of the dead girl was described as a ‘devout Christian.’
Does the name Paul Hill ring a bell?
No it doesn’t. Tell us more?
I know of a Joe Hill – writes some damn fine horror novels.
I thought Joe Hill was a slain labor leader?
Joe Hill was a famous leader of the IWW, but Joe Hill is also the pen name of Joseph Hillstrom King, Stephen King’s son.
man, you are stupid.
what about all those people that say “god told me too?”
what about abortion clinic bombers like eric rudolph?
what about the idiots that deny their kids health care and rely on prayer to treat diabetes instead? and thats just scratching the surface of christian fanaticism.
you need to read some history of india. you need to read some middle eastern history as well. you need to read some asian history too. have you ever read a newspaper in your life? you can start there first and then hit the history books.
maybe you just need to read something period and start somewhere.
Ever heard of a fellow named Tim McVeigh? Or perhaps Aaron Snyder, tried to assassinate the Colorado governor, with an entry in his day planner for that day with the words “I rule this country for Jesus Christ”? Or how about Mark David Uhl, arrested for manufacturing explosives to be used against another Christian sect? Or Dayton Lee Calaway, a 19 year old terrorist who tried to ignite a bomb in a Burleson, TX church?
Please educate yourself before you make such stupid statements.
Yeah, McVeigh is one they’d rather forget.
He was trained by radical muslims.
Okay, I finally get it. You really are just trolling. You can’t possibly be that wrong every time you post.
He was, in fact, trained by the US Army.
He was trained to be a soldier there, but where did he get his radical thinking? Was he a member of the KKK or a white supremacist group or something? I’m being sincere here, I’ve really never heard.
I think it’s what is professionally known as “batsh*t crazy”.
Froo, I really don’t want to sound like I’m attacking anything or anybody that you like, but I’m afraid I’m about to.
First, the good stuff: he served honorably in Desert Storm, and was decorated with the Bronze Star, and received an honorable discharge. He was angry that women and children had been killed by the government at Waco, over what had started as an ATF search for illegal weapons. He was a huge fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Now, the rest.
McVeigh was a member of the Michigan Militia movement. He started out as a Republican, but claimed later in life that he was more of a Libertarian. He left the NRA because they were too liberal for him. He spent time trying to convince people at gun shows to kill the FBI sniper that shot the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, Janet Reno, and the judge that was involved in the Waco fiasco. He hated taxation and gun control. The bombing of the Murrah Building was an idea he got from reading “The Turner Diaries”, wherein a terrorist attack causes the US government to take away everyone’s guns. In the novel, this leads to a rebellion by all right thinking Christian White folk, and the blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Jews, and race traitors are all put to death; New York City and Israel are nuked. A plane carrying a nuke is flown into the Pentagon. In short, McVeigh hoped to trigger the Second American Revolution.
McVeigh, in short, is the perfect example of the kind of person described in the recent Homeland Security report that got some segments of The Right so upset a few months back.
I may have missed a couple points there, but those were the highlights.
I don’t like Tim McVeigh, I think he’s a nut. I just hadn’t heard where he got his views from. I can see that he is so far right wing that he’s almost left wing again, along the same lines as Hitler (sorry Godwin).
Yeah, I’m sorry if I implied you would like him, I certainly know you better than that.
I think, however, that he’s a pretty good example of a certain, growing movement in the country right now, as evidenced by the DHS report requested and authorized by the Bush administration and released recently.
None of those attack an entire country or way of life they way radical muslims want to destroy western civilization. They are just random nut jobs who are denounced by mainstream Christian organizations.
Actually, troll, they’re attacking American citizens and their way of life. They’re trying to take away rights, kill innocent people for looking/believing differently, and they basically want to destroy the foundation of the US as we know it.
Also, there are other serious terrorist groups out there that ARE Christian.
I respectfully disagree with you in a strong way. Would you consider hanging a person not violent? As christian members of the KKK did in the name of Christ. To perpetuate segregation , justifying it with the Bible. How about hiding in the bushes and shooting a doctor through his window at home, killing him? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/200834.stm Please are you really going to believe that lie. Lie to yourself not others. Do just a little research that opinion is really. Completly wrong
Try the ones that kill physicians and workers at women’s health clinics.
Tell that to those already murdered in the name of Christ.
Sweet Jesus you’re in denial if you think they’re aren’t legions of Fundies who would gladly kill for their religion.
It’s humanity. It’s a murderous nature. Christianity, as well as Islam as well as the laws of the country (the closest fixed moral standards for Atheists) tell everyone to not kill, yet every religion is guilty of killing for or against their belief.
The reason the law says not to kill is because… well… there are people who kill, duh *shrugs* Law is created to curb the bad side of human nature, to help the world live more at peace.
Bwa-ha-ha, not counting a few abortion providers and receptionists and security volunteers, you mean!
Have you never heard of the inquisition? the crusades? Witch trials? There is more blood ont he hands of the christian church than on any other 3 religions combined. Add in sexual molestaion by clergy, and a pope that claims condems spread AIDS and it becomes obvious that Christianity is the most dangerous cancer to ever infect society.
/hug
agreed. religions should stop comparing “we’re SOOOO much less evil than the other guys!!” because really, it depends on how the laws are enforced, because the people here stating that christians have less bombings and killings going on than Muslims, need to think about the crusades, and how it turns out when you CAN get away with that stuff.
i can’t disagree that some people claim to be Christians that are not. but i can say that any Christian who does that is a big liar about their faith
I’m not letting this almost 1200 post thread die. LOL Anyway, NObama makes a good point. Just because you call yourself a Christian doesn’t mean that you really are. George W. Bush calls himself a Christian, but I think he makes a really lousy one. Ironically enough, the best example of this I’ve seen is the Family Guy episode where Peter meets Jesus and takes him to see Bush. That was a fine fine moment in television there.
But anyway, calling yourself a Christian and actually being one are two different things.
Sake. You do realise that that video has been edited and subtitled for humour and is a joke i.e. not real.
ac – that film isn’t a joke, we really do have people that twisted over here, and as society changes the more twisted they get, and the more of them crawl out of the woodwork.
Yeah but Anniee seems to honestly think that that is genuinely from a Palestinian TV show…
but anniee has some screws not just loose, but outright missing
she’s as twisted as the woman in this film.
OH REALLY? Is that so, you nasty b*tch?
Well, first of all you’ve never met me and have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Second of all, take some Midol because you’re obviously about to be on the rag and can’t handle your hormones. Either that or you’re off your meds again.
AC – yes, I’ve seen entire episodes of that show – it IS a children’s show, and it is filmed live before a group of very young boys. Are you retarded or did you miss all this? Do your dam* research before sounding even dumber than you already do.
Alright, no need to resort to petty insults.
Everyone remember this is a humour site.
Now we get to watch the over-zealous religious right trash the caption. *sigh*
It’s the fault of the overzealous antagonistic-towards-Christianity left – you’ve radicalized them with your constant hatred and attacks. They feel they have to fight now.
You do know how it happens that people get radicalized, right? I’m sure you’re familiar with how it’s the US’ fault that half of Islam is radicalized now, so this concept shouldn’t be too difficult for you to grasp.
Yeesh first I was thinking Lamictal but now I’m thinking Haldol.
Moron b*tch.
Aaaand it’s time to lock up the sharps.
@pittypat and don’t forget the custom jacket with all the buckles and extra long sleeves to keep her hands warm
….. Anniee….. you are so morally upright, i can hardly stand it. it’s going to make me… WRECK MY PANTS LIKE THE INCREDIBLE HULK!
Mee-OW!
Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Odd how often the radical “Christians” seem to forget that.
Pick n choose. Very common.
Love thy neighbour as thyself… as long as they believe the same things…
Love your child, as long as he’s not gay.
lol so true…….
Best comment so far, Sarah, that just about sums it up!
and look just like you too
PM, because we don’t believe in Anniee’s version of God, we don’t get to judge how well she follows the written teachings of said God. Despite the fact that it’s plain to anyone that Anniee is very angry, will not forgive, doesn’t seek to understand, hates the sinner more than the sin, takes spiritual pride in her faith, and essentially attempts to usurp the place of God by continually judging God’s creation, and especially His other children.
But, you know, she doesn’t have to listen to us; what do we know? We’re bad evil heathens who are going to burn in Hell for all eternity.
hehe, worse, were bad heathens who like screwing with weaker minds then our own. We’re bullies.
>:)
“than”
Sorry, it was bugging me. Good point, otherwise!!
grammar fixing fail: ‘we’re’ not were – thirty lashes for you!
i don’t know about you seth, but i plan on spending my after life in valhalla: fighting and dying each day only to be reserected at night to feast and party. and my dogs will be there because odin never said animals don’t have souls….
besides if she’s what’s waiting in heaven, ain’t no way in all of holy h3ll i want to be there even if i were an xian sheeple
I seriously doubt she’ll pass muster. Peter will take one look at Anniee and say you aren’t even good enough for hell!
They’d be afraid she’d try to take over Hell, and fail miserably, causing it to freeze over in the process.
I’ll be joining you. Until Ragnarok, that is.
That’s my kind of heaven.
HELLL YES!
i love Ragnarok and Nordic references in Christian debates, they make such a good statement.
ODIN WATCHESSSS
Norse mythology is particularly fantastic because the Nords never took their gods that seriously. Which is, honestly, how it should be today.
yeah, gotta love the Vikings
)
i mean, i’m sure it was comforting for them to have a god, especially when they/someone they love was in danger of dying, but they didn’t need to live their entire lives according to outdated things. The gods may have been hot-blooded and never really preached the peace message Christianity did, i’d massively prefer the more directly violent Norse gods rather than absolute believers in Christianity- at least they could be honest and solve their problems, whilst the Bible causes massive debate and confusion. (ps- sorry for the lack of caps, i’m at my school right now and this computer’s shift button isn’t working correctly- did what i could for caps, sorry
Nords? ROFL!
@HairySexyTroll
I’m guessing you got the reference?
@Tyler
The vikings were even pretty progressive, what with the men leading during war and women leading in peacetime.
“They didn’t need to live their lives according to outdated things.” Exactly right; they lived for the moment, whether that be huddled around a fire to survive the winter and telling wild stories, out fishing and hunting, or on the battlefield.
amen portlandmark
So your giving others responsibility for your own actions? And you wonder why the left calls you sheep
I think the definition of religion is “giving others responsibility for your own actions,” whether it be a preacher, God, a cult leader, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I’m old enough to remember when “The devil made me do it!” was a joking excuse for idiotic behavior. Now it’s “God made me do it!”
So Xtian.
It is important to Christians to have the Christ in Christian, you know, considering their faith is based around Him and all.
Understood, but what you are doing, which you repeated is like me changing Allah to s-h. S representing the part of the name most important to Islam. I understand that if you are not a Christian it does not mean anything to you, but it is important to Christians. That’s all, no hard feelings I hope.
Yeah, we don’t worship the X-men. We worship Christ, which I always wonder how the X ended up as a replacement for that anyway.
It’s shorthand for “ichthos” which is the fish symbol in Greek. According to what I’ve heard, early Christians were mostly in hiding and had to keep quiet about what they were. They had little secret signs they would use to identify each other, and the fish was one. If you suspected another Christian, you would draw the little Ichthos fish in the dust and wait for the countersign.
-
The Greek for the Ichthos, IIRC, is an X, making the shorthand for Christian “X”. You’ll have to forgive me, it’s been a while since I studied Greek
Wow, Froo. I knew about the secret signs and the fish, but I always though the “X” designation was a bit of a slam from non-Christians, where “X” is an unknown, the way it is used in high school algebra. You’re full of info!
I’m trying to find cites for you on the “X” part of it, but I can’t seem to find any. I’ll keep looking. I think it partly developed because the Greek letters for Ichthus were ΙΧΘΥΣ and sometimes got abbreviated to just the “X”. I’ve also heard that the little fishy symbol would sometimes be abbreviated to just the tail, making it more of an “X” than a fish.
-
Yes, I’m full of info, but as Hubby says, most of it is useless unless I want to be on Jeopardy
FTR, my Neo-Con parents considered it a slam, and would never let us abbreviate the word Christian. After hearing those stories and doing a little research, I never thought it was a slam.
I learned something today! Despite my best efforts otherwise, I learned something today!
Thanks for taking the time to find it out for us. Well also for letting us know. The “X” is considered bad not because what it represents but what it replaces. You are taking Christ out of a word. Not a big deal to me but according to Christianity it matters, so I try and defend it when I can.
I’m very much not a Christian, but I agree with you. There’s no reason to go disrespecting someone’s religion just because it doesn’t work for me.
@ Portland, Thank you. Mutual respect is always a good notion, regardless of upbringing, and our religious or non-religious views.
I’ve got no decent citations, unless you’ll all accept me having heard it independantly of froofrou.
Aha, I always thought it was X like criss-cross. The more you know! *star goes across screen*
oh. i thought it had something to do with the X being a crossed pair of lines, like the cross the christian savior died for them on, could that be part of it too?
no, actually the rest of the world made the x thing cause they wanted the name Christ out of words. believe me i would know as a christian myself.
Gotcha. Nope…no offense at all. Good point that I’ll try to remember….although it’s so much easier to type for the keyboard challenged like meself.
Thanks.
Annnnnnd, did you see what I was replying to you boehead turd? GET REAL. I make no apology for that; only an apology that I couldn’t think of anything worse at that moment.
Also, if the name fits…
That should read “bonehead.” And brak, can we get it straight here that my name does not have any m’s in it – are you dyslexic or stupid? You’ve got the vowels reversed with the consonants, “m”s instead of “n”s and there are two “e”s at the end. It is not a homophone of “AMY” but of “ANNIE”. Jeesh, how annoying. And when someone responds to a comment of mine by saying merely, “well I was thinking X drug, but now I’m thinking it’s X heavy drug” she gets called what she gets called.
Froo, for the record I am NOT drinking so don’t start that nonsense. Fittyfat was being a moron b*tch and she got called on it, simple as that.
You might have more credibility if you did blame it on the drinking instead of just being a soulless hypocritical harpy, but it’s your reputation, so have at it.
You’re the hypocrite for pretending that I wasn’t responding to the absolute NASTIEST kind of comment there is, and thus my reply wasn’t even on the level or calibre of pittyfart’s – methinks you protest too much about how righteous you are and how evil I am. Much too much.
Where have I ever placed myself higher than you in the morality spectrum? You’re constantly telling me what a bad Christian I am, not the other way around. Put down the bottle, darling. Your brain cells are starting to get lonely.
Couldn’t resist, huh? Well I’m beginning to realize that the real problem here is that you actually DO need medication and you ain’t getting it. The constant ups and downs, the erratic wild swings, the short term memory failure – honey, seek help.
When oh, when, will it dawn on you that I’m not in the slightest embarrassed about drinking and have no problem saying “Yep, that post was booze-fueled.” This one isn’t. I just got home from work my little undermedicated friend; sorry but no go. When I’m drinking, I’ll tell YOU, not the other way around.
Two of you. Separate corners and I know it is corny and cliche, and coming from an agnostic to boot, but would you think about what Jesus would do for a second?
Froo, Anniee was feeling attacked, and stating her reasons for feeling that way. Pittypat was being a jerk, implying that her legitimate (if slightly overblown, IMHO, but I’m not a Christian so what would I know) hurt feelings were mental illness of some sort.
The thing is, KaBoom is no kind of regular and Anniee has put in her time here. I’m not quite sure what she is, but she’s too damn earnest to be a troll. Be nicer to her and stick up for her once in a while, please?
Anniee, seriously, I like you, I think you are smart and I respect you. Jesus taught love and acceptance, and not to judge. That is easy to do sometimes, and really, really hard other times. But then if it were always easy, He wouldn’t have had to remind people how important it was. I get it wrong more than I get it right myself.
Seth, I’ve put in my time trying to be nice to Anniee in the past. All it gets me is attacked, except for one time very recently where she was actually responding in kind. We had a really good exchange, and I thought that her days of placing herself on a pedestal above me in terms of Christianity and politics were over, and we could be friends. I’m willing to try again, but as far as her being nasty to me, I’ll not tolerate it, nor will I tolerate it if she (or anyone else) is being nasty to a friend.
-
But like I said, I respect the hell out of you, Seth, and I will give it another shot.
-
Anniee, shall we get long?
Sadly, froo, crickets again.. so much for extending the hand of reason.
-
Anniee, what say ye?
I could easily be wrong, but I think he was pointedly using Xtian for that reason. I.e. he was refusing to call that kind of behavior Christian, because he didn’t want to tar the term.
Ah, well, if that’s the case, then I’m sorry. I just really hate it when people think that people like Anniee are representative of the entire Christian community.
That’s one of the reasons I think popularity has almost always been a very bad thing for Christianity. If professing Christianity is seen as a way to gain power/influence, or gain materially… IMO, “Power corrupts” isn’t quite as accurate as “Power attracts the corruptible.”
And the corruptible are, well… corruptible. They also tend to want and get a lot more attention than the ones who try to quietly do good.
And thus we come to the truly crippling part of the church. The church should NOT be powerful, because power DOES attract corruption. And when the church worships a man of no corruption, of no sin, and of pure love, corruption completely destroys the message. The church becomes more powerful on earth, but the message they are supposed to be delivering is now impotent. Hypocrisy and corruption have ravaged a perfectly good religion.
Outstanding post. This is exactly what I have thought all along. The organization ALWAYS, at some point in it’s evolution, become more important than the message and it’s focus then becomes nothing more than the accumulation and retention of power. At that point the message become superfluous to money and influence and is merely a tool to get more.
Hey folks….this Eric guy is OK!
Wow, I just saw this, but thanks, brak!
BTW, if anyone who has read this thread has not seen Dogma, rent it now. It’s both a hilarious send up of the church along with some extremely relevant commentary on the current state of the religion. It isn’t outright crapping on Christianity, just pointing out areas for improvement. And it’s got Jay & Silent Bob in it.
Excuse me, I’m not going to play the part of your whipping boy and your scapegoat. You do not need to drag me in to every conversation you have as a negative example, you jerk. That’s ridiculous. Stand on your own principles and ideas or STFU.
*I* hate it when people like the woman in the video become thought of as representative of Christianity in general. Did you ever think of saying THAT instead? No, of course you didn’t. Ass.
Check the nesting, he was responding to what you said previously, not “dragging you into a conversation” where you weren’t before.
-
Also, he did say what you’re asking him to say: {http://punditkitchen.com/2009/05/24/political-pictures-becky-fisher-word-christ/comment-page-1/#comment-167738}
{http://punditkitchen.com/2009/05/24/political-pictures-becky-fisher-word-christ/comment-page-1/#comment-167302}
I used YOU as an example because many things you’ve said in these comments have been very much what I’m talking about. However, when you’re right, you’re right. The Jesus Camp woman is definitely NOT what I want ANYONE to think Christians are normally like.
But again, you have come off as a very snooty Christian looking down your nose at nonbelievers and that makes me just as ill as atheists who make jokes about people of faith as being ridiculous. I know I’ve gotten my panties in a wad (they’re strictly for comfort, people, don’t judge me) over many of the religious things said here, but I have also tried to make clear my overall acceptance of people of all faiths or lack thereof. You haven’t done that. That’s why I mentioned you. Ass.
Eric, she looks down her nose at people she considers to be “less Christian” than she as well.
Which makes Jesus go *facepalm*
Amazingly-horribly-bad-taste jokes, sorry if they’re offensive:
1) When Jesus facepalms, is the result something akin to playing peekaboo?
2) WWJFP? (Actually, I think I like that one so much that I’ll have to use it to replace WWJB? on my car.)
I’m gonna have to call BS on this one. I almost NEVER talk about Christianity and certainly this might be only the second time I’ve even mentioned the scriptures on this entire board, ok? The only time **I** got bent out of shape prior was when Fister decided to label ALL Christians (but especially me) as mentally ill schizos psychos just for believing in the fairy God that we do. I didn’t see you b*tching then, though. So don’t even go there unless you can find a hell of a lot of instances of me even DISCUSSING this issue, because you can’t, Eric. You don’t like me and you want to make me your scapegoat “Well I hate it when people think of ANNIEE” and it’s nonsense. Stop it.
And also: “Let me explain it this way – you are NEVER going to have to wonder if the “kooky Christian” on the news or in the “Jesus Camp” type film is me because it’s never going to be. I don’t proselytize nor go door to door, engage in any strange rituals, or do anything in real life that anyone could consider strange. Now if we start to pursue a general strategy in this country against Christians like was done to the jews in WWII, you might see me on tv being rounded up into a cattle car, but that’s going to be as far as it goes. So find another scapegoat. This ISN’T the droid you’re looking for.
What is your definition of “proselytizing”?
You aren’t mentally ill. In fact, personally, I like you. If I didn’t like you and think you were smart, you wouldn’t have the power to annoy me like you do. I’ll try not to give you socialist cooties if you try to be a tiny bit less judgmental. You probably don’t mean to, but you kinda come across as arrogant. I’m just saying, I’d respect your religion a lot more if I saw it turn you into a nicer person.
Except that I was talking specifically about your attitude right here. Your attitude has been so preachy that even though we share the same religion, I wouldn’t dare defend your comments here, and I’ve been called the thickheaded one on here already.
No, you’re not the kooky nutjob like Jesus Camp lady, I’ll give you that. But you are the common stereotype of the holier than thou Christian.
Eric, this is an isolated conversation and you’re going to have to realize that there’s a difference between putting in my opinion when the subject simply comes up and proselytizing or being holier than thou. I don’t think I’m a better Christian than anyone (who is truly a Christian) – I’d rather, like Paul, call myself the chiefest of sinners. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t studied and wrangled with the scripture enough to speak with some actual authority on the meaning, because I have. That is what you’re seeing. I also generally have a specific purpose in mind when I engage in a topic. I’m not going to add a ton of “IMHO” and “JMO”s when I know something is true.
Seth – thank you, I didn’t realize you felt that way.
Froo – for my purposes I use it to mean that I don’t actively seek converts (though I might if I were in a location where no one had ever had a chance to hear the gospel, unlike the US where everyone has) or preach to non-Christians, except as such time they ask me genuine questions, in which case I answer as honestly and thoroughly as I can. If I feel up to it.
Well, holier-than-thou might not be your intent, but it is how you’re coming off. And I’m not the only one who thinks so. Your reputation on other subjects for being argumentative and insulting admittedly come into play here, so yeah, we’re likely to take what you say wrong no matter what your intention.
That being said, I’ll be the bigger man and say that even though I was responding to things you said above, I probably didn’t need to pick on you. I apologize for that.
Whether or not the sarcasm about using “‘IMHO’ and ‘JMO’s [sic]” was aimed at me, I’ll respond: In matters of opinion, neither you nor I has any business claiming that ours is The Truth. De gustibus non est disputandum. Recognizing one’s own opinion as NOT being The Truth is a strength, not a weakness.
Apologies, but I can’t resist… was “JMO” a Freudian Typo for “Jesus’s & My Opinion”?
“I don’t think I’m a better Christian than anyone (who is truly a Christian)”
:/ that sentence made me a bit uncomfortable.
also, Ari, JMO-Freud joke gave me quite the lulz, thanks for that ;P
Yes, tyler, I figured it would. That’s the way the cookie crumbles.
Stealth panties joke is win. ^_^
Thank you!
Thank you for the feedback. I’m very hesitant to claim any truth to my mindreading skills, and I’m glad that this time I was close to the mark.
Any Vulcan ancestry?
You’re a very angry, hateful person.
so what do you think made the overzealous antagonistic-towards-Christianity left so radicalized…
I’m pretty sure the over-zealous religious right was created first.
In the beginning God created the overzealous religious right, and they were without form and void, and darkness was upon them and they were not so deep.
And god fashioned into the left the rib which he had taken from the right, and thereafter the overzealous right can’t take a ribbing.
lol nice
That’s pretty funny actually.
In the beginning, man created god.
and then she realized she could do better
Ain’t no way to go but up!
BOO-YA!
But they weren’t doing scary things like in Jesus Camp. Not since the crusades or the catholic/protestant counter-burnings for heresy and that was a long time ago.
I think the point is that certain past siner should not be throwing stones.
Or cosiners either. Damn self-righteous geometry teachers…
… they’re always on an ego trig.
Damn Calculating bastards.
It can be hard to differentiate them though, until they say something obtuse.
Ahhh…they’ve always got an angle.
But it’s never an ugly angle, no it’s always acute one.
Let’s try not to go off on a tangent.
Well, and that minor thing about justifying slavery and the genocide of Native Americans via the teaching of more than one Christian Denomination that neither Africans nor Indians had souls. Or the forced conversion of colonized peoples to Christianity at the point of a gun or by kidnap and imprisonment in “schools” and “reservations.” Or the subjugation of half the human race to the whims of the other half simply due to their genitalia – arguing against women having the rights to property, voting, their own children for thousands of years. Or the girls in the 50s and 60s forced into “homes” and having their children taken from them for the “sin” of an out of wedlock pregnancy. Or the “anti-cult deprogramming” through kidnap and torture of people who had the audacity to chose other religions in the 60s, 70s and 80s (still going on actually despite the efforts of the alternative religions and smaller denominations to fight such tactics in court.) Um… Bosnia? The abuse of children by the Catholic and protestant priesthoods in religious schools and parishes. Also, as mentioned already, targeting doctors and clinics that provide abortion or just reproductive services to women and girls. Or the targeting of blacks and civil rights workers in the 50s and 60s in the South. Or hate crimes against homosexuals based on “religious” teachings. Or teaching that condoms make HIV spread faster? ETC.
So, you were saying again?
This all happened in a Jesus camp?
LOL! No, but the argument was made that Christians hadn’t done anything crazy between the Reformation and the Jesus Camp. Merely refuting that assertion.
Oh very acceptable, I was just going for the sarcastic literal approach to your response, just to prevent him from reaming you as he was talking about Jesus camps in particular. I understand that there are the crazies in all groups. I know there are fellow Christians out there that would do some crazy stuff in the name of God.
Heh! Yeah, there are fanatics and power-mongers in every human institution. It’s sad that we can twist something that has the power to be so up-lifting, spirituality, into a force that can cause so much destruction and hurt to people.
Usually when they realize the trouble they have caused, they will cop out and say “God/deity/w/e told me/ It was God/deity/w/e’s will”.
It’s the pendulum effect.
Haha, yeah, it’s always the people who are antagonistic against Christianity who are told to be “attacking” people, isn’t it? I find it amusing.
When I walk down the street Mormons start preaching to me, when I’m at home Jehovah’s Witnesses and other groups come knocking on my door to preach to me. And the pamphlets they give me tell me that I deserve to burn in eternal hellfire for not believing in their brand of Christianity.
And people like Fred Phelps and many other bigots tell me that I’m an abomination according to the bible, and that God almighty will force me to eat my children and friends because I’m not straight.
So, every once in a while I go online and I poke some fun on the bible verses that say stuff like that. I make some jokes, point out what I personally think is strange and twisted about Christianity. I post it on my blog and stuff, where people only have to read it if they want to and come there by their own free will. I’ve never bothered anyone in their home, I’ve never held up bigoted signs at funerals, I’ve never accosted people on the street telling them that they deserve torment.
But I’ve still been told several times that I’m the one who is intolerant. That I am the one who is attacking. For writing humor, that no one needs to pay any attention to, on the internet. Yeah, right.
Certain Family Guy quotes come to mind…
Standing ovation! Well said! Elebenty billion internetz for you!
“When I walk down the street Mormons start preaching to me, when I’m at home Jehovah’s Witnesses and other groups come knocking on my door to preach to me.”
Yeah, that’s truly obnoxious, I agree. But those are not any part of mainstream or orthodox Christianity.
“And the pamphlets they give me tell me that I deserve to burn in eternal hellfire for not believing in their brand of Christianity.”
These are part of mainstream Christianity, and they are merely trying to WARN you that you WILL burn in hell for not accepting Christ. It’s true, but it’s not something I see fit to go around proclaiming every day because everyone already knows this. There is more to it than that – there is redemption, and hope (but what would redemption and hope be without the knowledge of the lack of them?)
“And people like Fred Phelps and many other bigots tell me that I’m an abomination according to the bible, and that God almighty will force me to eat my children and friends because I’m not straight.”
This is a difficult issue – you can not, first of all, take the Phelps’ seriously – NO ONE in Christianity does. However, there IS sin and there IS redemption. Personally, I have a gay child myself – I don’t find that I can cast out my own child for any reason so it’s all going to have to be in the hands of God, isn’t it? He’s the one who saves or damns anyway – yes he has standards and I may be the arbiter as a Christian, but some things are beyond me. We shall see where it all leads. I’m sorry that these things made you reject God…or did they? Or was it that you already had? I had, when I was younger.
“Yeah, those eebil Moremenses are horrible if they do it! But if I do the exact same thing, I’m being nice.” Uehhhh?
Just curious, have you considered that 1st-century Jews probably felt the same way about you that you feel about Mormons? (Who, I’m told, prefer to be called LDS.)
I prefer LSD myself.
Better living through chemicals!
I find it’s a much better religious experience.
I took LSD and saw God. But you should really make an appointment if you’re gonna do that. I caught God on the crapper and that was really embarrassing. “Hey, can’t you knock first, a-hole?”
Monitor now drenched with coffee. Thanks for the laugh of the day, Eric! A whole new meaning for the Brown Acid.
Deliberately obtuse. Mormonism is a cult of Christianity by definition, not Christianity proper.
This, actually, isn’t true.
starrfade, I’ll offer a line of analysis that might help:
Even if we assume her statement is true, what does it have to do with the subject? I.e. “Why would the exact same behavior be obnoxious if Moremenses do it but nice if Anniee does it?”
That’s why you have to start with the first sentence. Like she says, she’s being deliberately obtuse. She considers them a cult, so as far as she’s concerned that means nothing about them can be good. Therefore, any question will be answered the same way.
It doesn’t matter whether the question is “Why are they eebil?” or “Why are you inherently superior to them?” or even “What definition of ‘cult’ are you using to call them that?” – the answer is “Moremenses are a cult.”
Never mind that first century Jews would have said the exact same thing about Anniee, i.e. that as far as they’re concerned she belongs to an illegitimate cult offshoot of their religion. They would only say that because they, like Moremenses, belong to an inferior religion. (And pretty much everyone else too.)
“These are part of mainstream Christianity, and they are merely trying to WARN you that you WILL burn in hell for not accepting Christ.”
Yes, I get that. I understand their intentions, but I still have a problem with atheists being called “attackers” in the context. Let me give you an example.
I never do this, but I’ve seen some people on the internet write about how they think religion is bad for people because it limits the mind. They try to convince people (again on the web, not by preaching to people in their homes) to give up their religion to live a fuller life. They say these things because they think that following their advice will help people. Maybe they’re wrong, maybe they’re right, but the point is that it’s their belief that religion can be bad for people and that they can help.
But when they do that, they are often called bigots and hateful. In most of society it is very much never ok to tell people that their religion is bad, even if you’re doing it with the best intentions of helping people. But at the same time I must always accept that the people who accost me in my home are just being friendly when they say that I deserve hell.
“This is a difficult issue – you can not, first of all, take the Phelps’ seriously – NO ONE in Christianity does.”
Well, there are people who take Phelps seriously. But sure, he is a big exception; very few are like him. There are however a lot of other people who love to tell me that being non-straight is the worst sin in the world and that I’m an abomination for it, and they usually have some nifty little Bible verses to go with it.
So I make a little fun of those Bible verses, just to show people that it’s absurd to hate LGBTs because of the Bible. And I’m not saying that I’m necessarily right in my interpretation of the Bible, I’m just saying that I find it amusing that I’m the one who is accused of being intolerant under the circumstances.
“I’m sorry that these things made you reject God…”
No, no, you have me very wrong here. I don’t reject God at all.
It’s just like with unicorns, Allah, Thor, Vishnu, vampires, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus and so on. I don’t reject any of those things/gods – I just have never seen any evidence for them so I don’t believe in them.
And I’m guess that you’ve never seen any evidence for the Hindu gods either, or the Norse Pagan gods, or any other god that isn’t your God. It’s easy for you to not believe in them – you don’t have to make any conscious “rejection.”
And I don’t have to make any conscious rejection of any of them either, and I just include your God in the list. I don’t reject Him, hate Him, distrust Him or long for Him, just like you probably don’t have any of those feelings about Vishnu. I just very casually don’t believe in any of the gods man have written about.
just responding to the phelps thing here — my take is that if people (fellow christians) really disagreed with phelps and his inbred clan, they’d band together to run him out of town every time he showed up, they’d be speaking against him on public media, they’d be demonstrating what their book professes and not ignoring the vileness of phelps and others like him. only when other christians from all walks of life band together and deny him and his twisted ideas, will phelps stop being a figurehead of newconservative christianity, but as long as nobody is speaking against what phelps spews, he’s going to be accepted as what christianity is all about – there needs to be some house cleaning done….
There are groups that do that very thing to the Phelps’ clan. You have to be careful, though, because those bastards have lawyers on the payroll and will sue you just as quick as you violate “their First Amendment Rights to Free Speech”. You pick your battles in those cases.
true, too true, but still it seems like there ought to be a way for the greater portion (i hope) of christians to speak out that they don’t agree with what he says and that he doesn’t speak for them. i under stand that people feel like they have too much to lose to speak against this version of a fascist, but i also feel that by standing by silently, they lose all claim to not being like him. what’s that quote?… something to the effect of silence is seen as agreement? ack, i can’t remember enough to even attempt a google to see if it would trigger more words…
so in substitute since i can remember this one:
“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then… they came for me… And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
~~~Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
source: {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…}
I always loved that verse, the path of least resistance does have a dangerous allure. The best one-liner I’ve heard on it is ‘In our silence we are complicit’. Which was said about democracy and participatory government, but holds true on all sorts of things, like people dragging your religon’s name through the mud.
If you’ll excuse me, there are some atheists mocking faith over there…
You wanna hear something disgusting? Glenn Beck ET AL are now using Niemoller’s words to complain about Obama’s treatment of our bailed out banks and car companies!
when can we put them out of our misery? that is one of the dumbest things i’ve heard in some time..
He won’t burn in hell, there is always an opportunity to ask for forgiveness. The prodigal son.
your hell, you burn in it, doh!
Best response to the “you’ll burn in hell!” fraternity
Dude, seriously, its stuff like this that make “people” like Anniee451 look considerate in contrast, and in the end isn’t that the real crime?
Just saying, rise above dude, rise above.
While I obviously can’t know – I doubt the “antagonistic-towards-Christianity left” arose out of nothing.
Uh-huh. Actually, the Islamic fundamentalist movement began about 60 years ago, and has little or nothing to do with the US.
More, in point of fact, can be attributed to such whiny tomes as Edward Said’s “Orientalism”, and it’s soldi blame of everything that’s wrong in the world on America and the west. All of which, of course, is a driect outgrowth of the aforementioned self-hating western left.
But you knew that already.
snicker
Tell us more about the Islamic Fundamentalists in the ’40s, please. Who were they up in arms against? What were their tactics?
I’m serious, here, not trolling. I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to.
i’m not sure if this is what you’re referring to or not, but do some research on arabs and nazis — it’ll curl your toes at the very least….
How did I miss the part where leftists invaded your country, killed your people, wrecked your infrastructure, stole your natural resources, put you into prisons without trial, and shat on your Bible? Damn left wing media, hiding the real news stories.
And when did Christians go from being the overwhelming majority of the country to a persecuted fringe? Aren’t nearly all politicians Christians? Because a group can’t really be ‘radicalized’ if they are the majority, and the dominant social group. You aren’t the underdogs, and you don’t get to play the martyrs.
“You aren’t the underdogs, and you don’t get to play the martyrs.”
Amen. (pun intended) The majority of congress identifies as Christian. We’ve never had a president who was anything but Christian. The majority of the supreme court is Christian. You can walk into almost any store selling books in the US and be guaranteed to find the Christian bible. You can go to any city of more than a few hundred residents in the US and find a Christian church, if not your specific denomination. Government offices and schools close for all the major Christian holidays. If you’re in the hospital, you can be sure that you will have access to a Christian minister should you need one, and most likely one of your chosen denomination. If you have to go to court, witnesses will be sworn in on the Christian bible. The thought that Christians, as a group, are persecuted is complete bullshit.
The real ‘persecution’ comes from variations in Christian denominations–Catholics don’t like Protestants, Protestants don’t like Catholics. Methodists don’t like LDS, and Church of Christ, Baptist, and Mennonites don’t like anybody.
Granted, thing is there are options available to all religions. You can affirm on any book you choose when it comes to court. The closing of religious holidays, I much enjoy the days off, I also have no problem with York (Toronto, Canada) closing on jewish holidays as it is mostly a jewish full school and many Jews have made donations to it. In a reverse spectrum (I already had this argument with my friend), if our nations were not a Christian based society, majority Islamic instead. We would have their holidays off. I would still take my religious holidays off in the end. I don’t know how accepting people would be, but in Canada you are protected to take your religious days off, and to work on days that are not of your religious celebration. That includes major Christian religious days.
I offer you a spin on the day off scenario though. Summer vacation originates with the immigrants sons and daughters having to help with the house in the summer. So being that so many students already were taking everyday off from school in the summer, they created the summer vacation. So being that we are in a Christian society, most of our government workers, bankers and so on are Christian. In Canada, you are allowed to celebrate your religious celebrations. So had there been no holidays to start with, these people would have to take the day off to celebrate it anyways. Now can a bank rationally open their doors when 80% of their workforce will not be coming in? So in our current society, even if you did not have the Christian days of celebration set aside as a day off. It would be hard for the businesses to operate at with a significantly reduced workforce. Point being, when I argued with my friend about this we decided that even though the days are set aside, it is necessary to have them. Some businesses are completely comprised of Christian workers, those businesses would definitely close. When your society has a majority of some particular religion, it is almost guaranteed that that particular religion’s holidays will be set aside as days off.
*headdesk*
summer vacation had nothing to do with immigrant children haveing to clean house during the summer — it’s an agrarian thing — boys especially were let out of school in early spring to help with the planting and with midwifery if the family had more than a few animals. often the boys would go back for the last couple weeks of so of school. then school would be let out so that all the children were available to help on the farm with crops and livestock. school often didn’t start up again until fall harvest, or if it did, boys and the older girls were excused to help with the harvest. it was only with urbanization that summer break became what it is today – vacation time.
Um, we were a settler society, as in we all were immigrants, though one would argue that natives weren’t relatively taught in our schools yes. I was using immigrant children in a broader sense. Sorry about that but aside from the one word we are in agreeance on summer vacation’s history. I learned it in grade 7 so I figured I would forget some of the finer points.
You may want to research the Mennonites before you say that… I’m pretty sure they’re a far more peaceful group than you might believe.
Yeah they’re pretty much pacifists, and not just in name only. Quite a few of our local Mennonites were very outspoken against the Iraq war.
Yeah, Mennonites and Quakers are okay in my book.
Once I took an online “Faith Test” that would match your beliefs with a faith that was appropriate. The results said I’d make a good Pagan, or possibly a liberal Quaker
i can so see you as a pagan, won’t label you as bad or good because those are subjective descriptors, but yeah, you’d fit into the pagan world nicely
I’m not speaking of pacifism, I’m speaking of the fact that Mennonites do believe that their denomination is the one true path to heaven, and that all other denominations, even of Christianity, are going to burn in hell. Seriously, find one and ask them. You don’t even have to find one, I’ll send you the number of my Aunt-in-law.
My husband’s family is Mennonite. I do happen to know a thing or two about the ACTUAL functioning of this group, not just the idealized version of their religion.
Actually, that’s part of the problem. Of course Christians are the majority, and have been since the country was founded. Where the problem (for us) lies is that recently its become “uncool” to even mention the fact that you’re a Christian, especially if you’re in a place of authority. If you’re president, say, and you have a real relationship with your Lord, now you’re just a nut job with an invisible sky daddy who tells you what to do. Our way of thinking isn’t “right”, so we’re considered a fringe and idiots.
-
I know I’m slipping into a fallacy of tradition here, but it seems odd that a mainstream religion that has been used for so long by so many people would suddenly be out of date and ripe for ridicule. So yes, we are a persecuted majority, and it makes it worse to have recently been the way to be and then suddenly be thought of as non-kosher (pardon the mixing of religions).
Does it honestly feel ‘uncool’ to be Christian?
Hey frou, you’re the coolest of cool. Along with eddie, and let’s see, Purple Switch! Of the cloth and too too cool. I’m being silly here but I mean it.
Awesomesauce! I never get to hang with the cool… adults I guess.
On topic – all beliefs should be ‘ripe for ridicule’. Placing something above mockery is the first step toward placing it beyond question or doubt.
Hey PS, my apologies – I had you confused with that wonderful Aussie minister who hasn’t been around in awhile – I’ve forgotten his name – you remind me very much of him.
You’re never going to offend me by calling me cool.
Though I’m kind of worried that I remind you of a minister. I’m about as far from Christianity as it goes, at least as I understand it.
Well you’re both smart, thoughtful smartasses who like to question everything. I love hanging out with the clergy, at least the ones I’ve met in New York. But then again, most of them have acknowledged being agnostic. Something about the base of faith being doubt …
That was OhmyGoodness: I think he was busy moving house or something…
Thanks AC – I bet he’s lurking. Come back OMG!
Oh and AC? You’re cool too, in my book, but I know my book aint all that much. And neither is being cool.
Of course the Queen of Puns knows all about being cool!
Yeah, I liked him bunches, he was a laugh riot.
Thanks pittypat!
Natch Pscetti!
Well, I’m uncool because I’m a “bible-basher.” i.e. someone who is Christian before they are Protestant or Catholic. Here in Scotland some people buy into the Protestant/Catholic labels just to forge themselves an identity in a piece of archaic racial/political bigotry and people who’d describe themselves as Christians, read the bible, understand it and go to church are sadly thin on the ground. In my school of 1200 I could probably count on my two hands the number of people who’ve “come out” (yep, “come out”) about their faith. And -more so when I was younger and shyer and worried more- it feels very very uncool.
I’m sorry. If anything I’ve written has offended you as a Christian, I apologize. You and froofrou both: sometimes I don’t choose my words very well and I let my angry side out and I’m not proud of it.
It is very, very cool to choose and pursue a genuine spiritual path. Anyone who is cool knows that, it was like the first thing they taught us in cool school.
Seth, for all of your challenges to me about making sure I can stand up for my faith, I have never taken anything you said to heart or been offended by it. I honestly thought when I started talking with you that having this type of deep conversation about religion with an agnostic such as yourself would cause me to question my own faith, perhaps losing it in the process. Rather, it has strengthened my faith and given me the ability to look at things from a completely different point of view. I truly thank you for that!
And don’t you remember the first rule of cool school? You do not talk about cool school……. 
-
So you and I, we’re cool
Not to put to fine a point on it, but that is the best thing I could ever have heard from anyone. We are all looking at the same thing, we just have different words for it. The truth will be strengthened by talking about it, and the ignorance diminished. Every great tradition says something along those lines.
Cool School:
1. You do not talk about cool school.
2. Everybody in cool school has a passion.
3. Don’t ever care what anyone else thinks of you, unless you’ve chosen to respect them.
It’s only because of rule 3 that I can mention rules 1 and 2.
Honestly no, not at all. There’s no need to apologise: you never said anything offensive or unfair and it speaks volumes that you were concerned enough to check.
Yes it does. The problem is that everyone assumes that being the majority of anything makes you automatically immune from persecution, but the treatment of mainstream Christians and the subsequent watering down of the belief system is hard to take. I realize that there is a natural evolution with religion just as there is with other thngs, but the advent of things like the Internet and other ways is making communication Instantainious have caused this particular erosion to happen quicker than normal.
-
And think of how Bush was treated and denigrated by the “mainstream” when be referred to his religion. It’s completely uncool to be christian in this day and age.
From what I saw of the election, it’s cool to indulge in feel-good sayings and generally approve the odd Christian moral or be traditional about things but as for meaning it…
Agreed. I once heard of an occasion where Bush professed to have been involved in a Bible study of the book of James, but couldn’t actually remember any specific lessons or verses when asked. It’s too bad; I would have been interested in hearing what he thought about 5:1-5.
Sorry Froo, but here I disagree with you: Bush’s version of Christianity was very much the same kind as Annie’s, imo: superficial, thoughtless, violent, and intolerant.
I agree with Portland Mark – a person’s religion should be a private affair, and has no place in a presidential election. With that said, with regard to it being “uncool” to be Christian, name one presidential candidate who could win an election if they said they were athiest. And anyway, Bush’s actions were anything but Christian. He is a war monger. Not exactly Christ-like.
Around here, yeah! But otherwise, no.
Yes, Seth, it does feel “uncool” to be Christian. Hell, despite how I’ve been going on about it on here, I actually tend to wince when people start talking about it. A lot of it is because I don’t want anyone shoving their brand of Christianity down my throat when I have my brand that’s working for me. There’s also the liberal in me who doesn’t think people should be shoving their beliefs down anybody’s throats at all. And finally, religious discussions almost always blow up. Kinda like here. Usually if I’m asked if I’m a Christian, I’ll say yes and leave it at that.
Oh noes, end the apartheid! Stop persecuting the oppressed majority by trying to enforce your religious viewpoints on them! No more passing laws forcing them to have abortions and making them get married to gay people!
And especially no more cruelly calling them “uncool!” After all, isn’t the point of Christianity to be cool, rich, fashionable, and popular in this life?
Please be nice to froofrou, she’s a very nice and intelligent person. Nobody should feel badly about their choice of spiritual path, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else because of it.
That is why it’s worth holding up a mirror via reductio ad absurdum. An intelligent person may profit from criticism if it shows them that their words contradict their true goals (which for the record I believe are highly admirable).
I don’t know. IME, froo is right. Okay, maybe persecution is a strong word…well, not always though. But Christianity could certainly use some good PR these days.
Just my 0.02 dollars… but popularity has almost always weakened Christianity, and real persecution has almost always strengthened it. I have to go to work or I’d try to find a more cogent explanation, but one that comes to mind is that it’s when times are bad that you find out who your truest friends are.
You know, I think you may have a point there.
If they quit embarrassing themselves, the problem would take care of itself. Oh, wait, so I guess they DO need a PR guy…
No, the bad publicity they’ve gotten, the lack of respect, the bad reputation – they EARNED that.
I love how christians consider the mildest of criticism aimed their way to somehow constitute ‘persecution’. I have news for them – being regarded with an attitude of well-deserved contempt may be unpleasant, but it is NOT persecution.
Want to change the attitudes? Stop being jerks and keep your religion to yourselves and out of our laws.
Once again, some bad eggs have ruined Christianity for everyone. Do you really think all of us are just waiting in hiding for a chance to shove our bible up your ass? The problem is, the nutjobs are the ones who end up in the news, not the normal Christians. No, Christianity does NOT deserve contempt. Certain people within it do, but it’s not fair to slam the entire religion like that.
Froo, I could not have said it any better myself. Wow. I am *impressed*, and I’m not being sarcastic.
And you didn’t even cite one source! (Ok, NOW I am!)
What some of the people who want to bash all people of faith need to realize, there are people who claim thier ideals that are evil as turds too. Often imposters hiding behind those ideals like a wolf in the fold. How many pedophiles become teachers or scout masters? Maybe not always to that extreme, but they are there. Such as that teacher (I forget her name, that had 2 kids with and is married too what was her 6th grade student)
The America I love is dying. It’s a crime to not be what the media says you should be. Not free to pursue happiness, so long as you don’t interfere on others.
And as far as the JW’s and LSD’s and such street preaching and door knocking, what about the tree huggers screaming “Prius! Prius!” at every SUV they see? I drive a full size van because I have 5 kids, and we don’t fit in the usual minivan. And sometimes that means it is empty as I am cruising the parking lot looking for a space while the wife is shopping. And with 5 kids and being self employed, NO ONE looks for more ways to save on utilities.
When I encounter above door knockers and such, I make them try to show me what they are doing in the Bible. And I usually send them away with a stunned look on their face. Some of them mean well, just remember that.
@Justa – the teacher that had 2 kids with her former student was Mary Kay LaTourneau, a very very sick woman.
And speaking of JW’s and LDS’ that come calling – I know people who do just what you advocate – ask them to defend their views in light of other information to the contrary. Politely, of course. Or there’s the tack my husband would take – answer the door in your underwear.
It could be worse… at least he answers the door in his underwear. ^_~
@froofrou – as a card carrying minority who is also not, nor ever was christian – i could care less what faith a person holds to as long as they also support the greater good of society, etc, and don’t attack me for my belief structure, tell my children they will burn in hell because we’re not christians, use their book of rules as the sole explanation for anything and everything, etc. it isn’t the belief structure/brand of faith that people don’t care for – it’s the spin that the evangelicals have put on christianity and removed what actually made your religion a healing one instead of a warrior faith.
and another point that is one of my pet peeves is the need for christians to prey for me to find christ and convert… what the heck is up with that — i don’t tell someone i’m going to do a ritual or cast a spell, or whatever, so that they’ll start worshiping some other god/goddess, or any other such invasion of their belief structure. i’m all for discussions and comparisons of faiths until i’m told mine is wrong and that i’m an evil person, etc…. if you (generic) are looking for converts, threats aren’t beneficial, and if someone doesn’t express an interest – gee whiz, move on to greener pastures, not get louder and more aggressive…. after all, that smacks of forced conversion, and while that might (did actually) work during the middle ages, isn’t it time for the more self-righteous elements to grow up a bit and worry more about the plank in their eye instead of the splinter in mine or anyone else’s.
***only chastising the loud-mouthed, pushy, arrogant, my way or else, type christians here, not those who understand that different strokes for different folks take us all to the same place in the end. after all isn’t it the trip to perfection and becoming closer to the divine the purpose, and not the path that gets us all there?
and just for you frou: walk in the light and be at peace
The light! It burns!!!! It burns!!!!!
What the heck is up with this web site? There is something special about it, I can’t put my finger on it, but it is like that old nursery rhyme (assuming PK is the little girl):
There was a little girl
Who had a little curl
Right in the middle of her forehead
And when she was good
She was very, very good.
But when she was bad she was horrid.
Here’s to diamond mining in the sewers of the Internet!
hey now, i resemble that little girl
!
You came here during the month I was all into a work project, bad faerie. Damn slow hidebound state government, sapping all my will to do good things, now I’m reading and posting here again. Ah well, what can you do? And by that I mean, I like you, bad faerie. You remind me of this hot little sixty something who was dying of cancer that I had a five way with in Hawaii. Uh, TMI?
Never! I just can’t get past my silly inhibitions and body issue long enough to give hubby that particular fantasy, so I live vicariously
Hehe, I’m posting this as my best friend screws the heck out of my wife in the next room. Our little three way is like that poem too. Tonight it’s nice. Sometimes it’s really difficult.
This is the first time I have been the partner and not the new addition in a MMF three way relationship. I’ve known about NRE (New Relationship Energy) for a long time, but it is different seeing it from that perspective.
I like that you think about giving hubby the FFM fantasy! It is really an ego boost for guys, more so than for girls. In fact, I’ve found most girls just get overwhelmed in an MMF situation. If you ever want to go through with it, set ground rules ahead of time. Limitations on what he and she can do together. And set a safe word that functions as a shut off, if things get weird and you just want it to stop for the evening, say ‘orange’ or something. But no on again off again the first time, your safe word shuts it down completely, and the three of you have a protocol (me and my husband talk it out, then we talk with you, or whatever you decide.)
And just to clarify (as with all sins) it isn’t adultery if no one feels hurt by it. IMHO, obviously.
speaking as someone who was on the wrong side of things that go bad in a relationship – listen to seth – he speaks the truth on laying out guidelines ahead of time. and on top of his suggestions, here’s another: never, ever engage in something without your partner being fully aware before hand, each and every time! just because it was ok last week, doesn’t mean it’s okay today if you don’t discuss it first. it’s still going behind someones back which does come awfully close to cheating. and screen, screen, screen first. . . just my opinion based on life survived….
The problem with straight MF relationships is all the Hollywood baggage, all the stories we have about how MF relationships should go down. Everyone who has been part of an alternative relationship knows you have to negotiate everything, there are no scripts for you to follow. That’s probably why I choose to be alternative. I hate following scripts.
give me a script and the first thing i do is botch the lines, then depending on how strong coyote is that day, i’ll either ignore all directions, or do the opposite… i might play well with others, but i run with scissors too
i had the typical wasp marriage right down to the divorce — we didn’ agree on much there the last few years… he wanted a bimbo on the side and i felt that after a couple decades it was a little late to announce the change in rules after he’d already changed the game play…. it’s what you get for marrying the only son of an evangelical southern baptist minister and expecting them to live up to the ideals they hold everyone else to…. while it’s possible to change horses mid-stream, both you and the horses must be in agreement or at least one goes under….
but seriously, i lost all respect for him the day he broke his solomn vows he made to his god, in his christian church….
I find my own lion-ish personality would preclude letting another rooster in the hen house, despite how lovely Lynn would look between a sexual rock and a hard place.
Luckily, while she likes that idea, she much prefers the idea of having another girl present as she technically is a switch but lacks any urge to try and dominate me, which is good because I wouldn’t have it anyway. Just not my thing. She has her dominating urges towards other women. Rather cute when you see how much of a kitten she is normally.
I have to agree with Seth, Adultery is in the lie and deception.
In the end, what Seth describes is way too free wheeling for me. I have too many … Let’s just go with mental issues to enjoy what all could happen.
Well, there is that verse in Paul’s writings that says something along the lines of the marriage bed not being defiled. Many people have interpreted this as meaning that if you’re married, go to it! Bondage, S&M, bringing in the orgies, just go for it! I’m all about that definition, as long as everyone is cool with it. I am in complete agreement about the adultery being in the lie and deception.
@seth: got pics?
but lol, the only time i’m a hot anything is when the power surges hit and there isn’t an electric fan handy
but sixty something is close enough to tickle my funny bone for some reason….
and to be honest, i’d lurked for a long time before jumping in – had to get the layout of the land so to speak, wanted to see who was reasonable and who were/are trolls and how much thought it would take to stomp a few…
and i am a wicked old hag who likes to pop over inflated egos, ask questions, demand explanations, annoy the annoyable, and generally make a pain of myself while expanding my consciousness and hopefully get someone else to think outside their self-imposed boi
Well you sound very much like me, then. Stir it up! My friend in Hawaii and I were part of a very special little polyamory group called Pali Paths. She came down with cancer and decided that she was going to do all the things she had wanted to do, but never done, before she died.
The cancer wasn’t the hard part. The hard part was that after we had gotten to know and love her, and have hot sex with her even though she was sixty something and had obvious cancerous growths, her aorta split.
We were faced with a dilemma. Operate on the aorta, and not only would it spread the cancer, but her last few months would be agonizing. Don’t operate, and she would be in mild to moderate pain, and liable to kick it at any moment.
On her behest, I called my cousin the hospice nurse (and member of the Hemlock Society) and asked her, given these medications and dosages, what would she need to do to, you know, cash it in?
My cousin, bless her heart, gave us a medical and a physical option. Enough blood thinners and opiates would do the trick. Or, we could hold her back up, suspended over a hard surface, and let her fall backwards. Her aorta would rupture, and she would pass almost immediately without pain.
Just knowing that, and having a group of loving people watching over her, she was able to pass naturally, feeling in control and loved the whole time. It is one of the parts of my life of which I am most proud.
That experience really helps now that my mom has cancer. Hehe, I’m kicking mom’s ass, telling her to eat her vegetables and get back to work. I don’t see any lumps! Are you a cancer survivor or a cancer victim? Yeah? Well get back to work then!
And one last thing, if you have to help a loved one through something like cancer, good pain management is the key. Nerve blocks are the way to go these days.
i’m sorry about your friend, that’s a hard way to go.
when my mom was diagnosed with cancer she was give a choice – 6 months of pain and misery from chemo & radiation, or 6 months of quality. she chose the quality and made nearly a year. luckily for her, her tolerance to any meds was so low that half a baby asprin put her to sleep for hours and then towards the end, we added benydryl. it wans’t until she lapsed into a coma-like state the last few days that the hospice nurse broke open the morphine.
me, i’ve already cleared it with my oldest that if i am trapped in a vegitative body, i want out and if my mind is shot (more likely) that when she and her sisters are ready, let me go one way or another. i know what my future probably holds for me health-wise and it isn’t pretty, and that’s without even taking into consideration any chance of cancers….
Egad, that was my mother’s poem for me, growing up (I have very curly hair). I don’t think I can read it in the same light again. LOL
embrace your inner pan, makes it all more delightful
sorry, i’ll put down the magnifying lens now
something odd just struck me — why doesn’t/hasn’t any of the christians here asked us non-christians what we believe in – what our moral compass is since many don’t have a big book of rules?
is it because you’re (generic) so caught up in defending your right to bludgeon others with how horrible they are for not being ‘perfect’ christians?
or is it because since we aren’t christian, our beliefs are worthless?
just an odd thought is all….
I’m guessing that, at least for some of them, our beliefs are our business.
I have several Christian friends who subscribe to the “deeds over religion” mindset. That is, as long as you’re a decent person, you get into heaven regardless of religion. If you’re a right bastard, then you get the shaft even if you pray to Jesus every day.
Maybe it’s because of the rather liberal metropolitan area I live in, but most religious types here are very tolerant and accepting. Very few fire-and-brimstone types, percentage-wise.
Personally, I belong to a diminishing yet colourful faith that doesn’t take itself too seriously, or its mythos literally. It’s also one of those that forbids proselytizing and conversion, because “each of us must find the path that is best for us.” I really don’t concern myself with others’ faiths except as a matter of curiosity… unless they’re screaming, violent fundie types, of course.
actually, no one can go to heaven unless they are saved, no matter what good deeds they have done. and All Christians will go to heaven, but not all of them will have rewards.
Wait…what? There’s a rewards program? Nobody told me there’s a rewards program.
Well, see, that’s YOUR interpretation and beliefs.
Some of the Gnostics, deists, and more “casual” Christians don’t necessarily believe that. They have a more Buddhist approach to it.
And I thought heaven WAS the reward? If all Christians go to heaven no matter what, that means Hitler and everyone who has ever murdered in the name of God gets in, but Ghandi doesn’t. I’m sorry, but that’s not exactly justice.
If you’re in a place of authority in a country with freedom of religion, it is exactly at that time you have to become *more* careful regarding how you handle statements of belief. You need to balance your secular authority with your obligation to the rights of those “under” you.
Being considered “uncool” is a far cry from being persecuted. If the world is a fallen place, why would Christians want to be considered “cool” anyway? It amazes me how many Christians get bent out of shape because they think that people don’t *like* them. Really? Is being *liked* what Jesus was concerned with?
No Christian Hate Bashings? Where do you live, and can I come there?
I can’t get you an exact match on the circumstances, because every hate crime is different. I can, however, point you to targeted crimes on Christians: {http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45077}
{http://copycateffect.blogspot.com/2009/03/ch-list.html}
Hate crimes are all around us, even when they’re not called that.
I see, and I stand corrected. There have been hate crimes. That second site fails to mention that some of those shootings were Christian-on-Christian, like the Knoxville shooting (it was a UU church shot up by a radical evangelical), however.
At this point, then, I would ask when these crimes become persecution, and not just random hate crimes. By my understanding, persecution is performed by a majority upon a minority, where these would be classified as American terrorism.
Yeah, you did-you’re writing about, in point of fact, the ottoman Empire, which occupid the Middle East for centuries, and played a much greater role in forming the present “character of the Middle East and her denizens than ANY western country-much less the US, which has only been there less than 20 years.
Hint: check out such vacation spots as the Balkans, Lebanon, Greece, etc, all of which were occupied by the Ottomans for centuries.
Why do I never hear a word against the Turks? Is it possible that *gasp* the left is ignorant of the relevant historical, sociological and religious facts and is acting solely on the basis of immature appeals to emotional, Christian based self-hatred?
Nyah…..
I thought there was something about a mote and a beam, but maybe I’m misremembering things.
I’d never go vacationing near Turkey. I’m afraid I’d get locked up in a prison for 20 years.
You know, not everyone left-leaning is antagonistic towards Christianity. If they were, there wouldn’t be so many of them holding membership in Christian churches.
Jesus was a die-hard socialist, if you carefully examine what he actually said versus what preachers “interpret” out of his words. But saying that too loud is liable to get you crucified. Kinda like it did him.
No, just made fun of for misreading Karl Marx.
What part Of Marx’s writings did he misread, Dhoti?
The part about his guardian Engels?
Nice pun. I’ve spent half an hour trying to think of a followup, but I have to admit I’m out-classed.
Well after all that labor I think it’s time to party!
Given your userpic, should I bring Czechs mix? or Mao mix? (Weak, I know.)
Specifically, it is zee mao tse tung that I most releesh!
Your wish is my command. I’ll even set out the nice silver and the Lenin tablecloths.
Kai-shek and see if they have any Meow Sea Tuna down at the corner store?
The transition from capitalism to the ideal classless, stateless society, and his interpretation of communism. (Strictly speaking, communism might be the ideal Christian society, but Marx’s version ain’t it.)
As much as I detest the overtones inherent in “Jesus was a community organizer”, the message isn’t too far off.
Jesus misread Karl Marx? =/ If anything, it would be the other way around – Jesus’ words predate Marx by a year or two.
A few years?! Groucho was born in 1890!
It was meant to be light sarcasm, but I’m often told my humor is too oblique.
moi aussi apparemment
Je ne parle pas Francais. Est-que tu pouvais il ecrire dans Anglais?
Desolee! Somehow I feel compelled to write in French when I want to convey that I have indeed raised one eyebrow.
It’s the outrageous acCENT that warrents a raised eyebrow, vraiment?
“warrants”
Sorry, it was bugging me. Good point, otherwise!!
Careful with those pronouns…
Thanks, Frood. I am quite surprised how often people I expect to be leaning heavily to the right are either squarely down the middle or left of center. I am doing my best to walk down the middle of the road with the congregation I’ve been serving for a few months, but I suspect we are a lot more alike than I think. Still uncool the lot of us, but you can’t have everything.
I still don’t get how being Christian is suddenly “uncool.” I mean, if you don’t belong to the Christian Council in my old high school, you’re basically a social outcast and unpopular.
My sister lives in Arkansas, and on visits to see her, I’ve been refused service at restaurants & Wal-Mart (big loss there *eyeroll*) when I was a little generic Neo-Pagan wearing decidedly non-Christian jewelry or having books on the subject in my hand.
yes, there is no more oppressed group in history of the US than christians. especially now. just look, theres a handful of jews and even a muslim serving as representatives and senators. i even heard theres a jew on the supreme court! pretty soon christians will only hold 98% of the reigns of power instead of 99% then who knows what will happen!
but the only thing that can save us puny liberals from the islam suicide bombers are christian-right suicide bombers
/flex
Am I dumb for not knowing who this is?
Can’t be, ’cause then I’d be dumb, too, and that’s just impossible.
check out “Jesus Camp” on youtube…creepy stuff!
i had no idea who this lady was either until someone up top made a Jesus Camp reference.. then it all came together.
Hehe… religion.
Ba-a-a-a-a. *chews grass*
So how do atheists, (of which I presume you are one based on the baaa-ing), explain things like apparently miraculous cures? We’ve all seen plenty of fakes, but the real thing happens too, all the time really. I’ve heard a lot of people explain them psychologically, as just a super-manifestation of the placebo effect if you will. But that doesn’t explain the stories I’ve heard, some of them from people I trust who experienced the events personally, where babies with long-standing health problems are anointed with oil and prayed over as the Bible suggests are are healed almost immediately. So far as I know, placebos don’t work on babies, they aren’t intelligent enough yet to understand what is going on.
There are also plenty of children and adults with on going health issues who never get anointed with oil or prayed over yet still experience spontaneous remissions.
Maybe so. But all the same – if some child has experienced a problem for months, then gets prayed over and is better the next day, you’re going to chalk that up to coincidence of timing? I suppose I’ll never be able to prove you wrong, but sheesh.
Hehe, actually recent studies showed that, statistically speaking, prayer is detrimental to your odds.
Thing is, if faith is suppose to be something done in the absence of proof, then why are you trying to give a justification for faith? Shouldn’t Faith be something you should be able to hold onto, despite the facts?
And in answer to your question, maybe the kids zodiac table was in the correct alignment that day, or maybe his karma had paid off, or maybe the flying spaghetti monster enjoyed a macaroni drawing the kid had made and decided to let him live.
Or heck, maybe the devil did it just to screw with people.
And heck, does that mean god only cares about children when people pray for them? If they’re orphans then god says fu.ck em? Or that God demands a quota before he does something good for people?
And what about those who people pray for and yet die? Were they praying wrong? Or if its all part of gods plan and pray was pointless in that particular incidence, then wouldn’t it always be pointless as no matter what you do, God has his own plans so you better just suck it?
No, I don’t think faith is something you hold onto against reason because it gives you some psychological plus, which is what the majority of people here seem to think. Christianity either is true, or isn’t. The events recorded in the Gospels either happened, or didn’t. I think the evidence that Christianity is objectively true is quite high. There are books written on this subject, and I’m not going to write you one here – but suffice it to say that if you abandon all metaphysical prejudices (like a belief that miracles can’t occur, for example), and look at the historical record as objectively as you can, you would conclude that there is actually a great likelihood that the events in the New Testament occurred as recorded. That is, the evidence for them is stronger than many other historical events of that age that are believed in by mainstream historians. The reasons mainstream historians are more skeptical of Christianity is just because of the miraculous and moral claims the Bible makes – they’re letting their philosophy drive their conclusions rather than the other way around, in other words.
I think you’ve lumped faith in with religion.
If you look at the historical record and the objective fact the bible doesn’t hold up well, nor dose any other religion. In fact, atheism holds up pretty badly as well.
And how do you know that god didn’t just make the bible up? as a test to man, or as part of his master plan?
Or how do you know that the people who wrote the bible weren’t mistaken in their understanding of gods works? Isn’t the whole point of the bible is that god is incomprehensible?
Or maybe the devil wrote the bible, so as to trick man away from gods true path, that god created the universe billions of years ago.
Also, are you kosher, or is the bible something you simply pick and chose from?
You ask many questions. As I stated above, I think the Bible does hold up well objectively. If I wasn’t clear, take it from Richard Purtill in “Thinking About Religion”:
“It is sometimes claimed that historians simply as historians regard Old and New Testament history as unreliable on some independent historical grounds. But… many events which are regarded as firmly established historically have far less documentary evidence than many biblical events, and the documents on which historians rely for much secular history are written much longer after the event than many records of biblical events. Furthermore, we have many more copies of biblical narratives than of secular histories; and the surviving copies are much earlier than those on which our evidence for secular history is based. If the biblical narratives did not contain accounts of miraculous events or have reference to God, angels, etc., biblical history would probably be regarded as much more firmly established that most of the history of, say, classical Greece and Rome.”
And if you believe that the gospels record true, historical events, I think you’ve gone far toward answering the rest of your questions too.
And the written religions of the east out date both the secular and religious documents of the west, does that mean you believe in dragons?
Also, how dose something being old prove that its true? Or do you still believe that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it?
And, can you give me a source in favor of religion that was written by some one impartial?
Also, you haven’t answered my question, are you kosher?
It isn’t being old that he is praising, it’s that the history was written shortly after the events it records, as opposed to a long time afterwards. (That makes it older.) The history is more likely to be accurate if it is written soon after the events occur, in other words.
As for impartial sources – you can understand that if historical research convinces you that the Bible is accurate, you’ll probably become a Christian. You may have been doing impartial research at the time, (Lee Strobel is rather famous in this regard as someone who set out to disprove Christianity and then became a Christian, but I really don’t like his writing style), but I don’t think you would call them “impartial” afterwards.
And a point I’m trying to make is that you assume an accuracy with this old information because it’s, as you put it, written shortly after the events. yet I can get you a pile of equally old papers, written shortly after the events, that contradict your papers.
If you want I can even get you cave man drawings that show a distinct lack of angels and dinosaurs.
And as you haven’t answered my question I’ll answer it for you, you’re not kosher. Meaning that you’ve decided against a passage in the bible, one of the old ones in fact. You’ve looked upon the passage not as fact but as a guide, which you’ve chosen not to follow.
And while God had very thorough laws regarding all sorts of things when he carried his message through the nation of Israel, I don’t think the Church is bound by all those same laws. A theologian could give you a better answer, but there are plenty of indications in the New Testament that we are no longer bound by the food laws. Acts 10 records a vision Peter had telling him to eat animals he considered unclean (he, being a good Jew, was horrified.) Paul in 1st Timothy writes that “For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”
So you think the bible is flexible, even with in its own cannon?
david, why do you quote your bible at people as proof of something? i;m not a christian, those words mean nothing to me as an argument for believing in your book. ok, not what you are saying specifically here, but in general, why do people quote their belief set as reason that the rest of us should think the same way? i could quote the tao of pooh or the te of piglet and then expect the same results, but would those quotes convince you to change your belief structure? to me that concept just smacks of shallowness and lack of respect for others…
BF, maybe because that’s what they’re DISCUSSING? What the hell is wrong with you? I think the words make you uncomfortable.
David, if you want to use miracles you’re going to have to back it up with a real, verifiable miracle. They don’t happen all the time at all, they are extremely rare events. I believe you’re confusing Providence with the miraculous.
By the way, a truly miraculous healing is complete, permanent, and instantaneous. It encompasses things like actual paralysis, withered limbs, blindness, deafness, etc – not vague symptoms. There have been miracles that God sovereignly accomplishes from time to rare time, but there are no people with miracle-working power such as charlatans like Popoff or Hinn.
@annie with hir head up hir fannie (i’ve asked you nicely before to use my name, evidientally you don’t understand nice?) what the hell is wrong with you? did your bejeesus buddy run away again and you can’ find him? try following his teachings as they are written in your book of rules and maybe he’ll let you find him again.
as for being afraid of words…. only when backed up by an ugly drunk with no brains, but a big mouth.
and i was asking questions of someone else, maybe a bit snarky which was unintentional, but then if david has a problem with my snark, i’ll apologize to him – so what the hell is wrong with you – elastic in your troll underwear a bit too tight too tight and cutting off the blood supply to your brain? and don’t think so much about others, reflect more about why you act so hostile to anyone who doesn’t think like you do, or is that to much to ask of someone who uses the language you do? so what the hell is wrong with you?
OK, it is fair to say that there’s a good body of evidence that there lived a man named jesus, who was followed by many israelites, seen by some as a messiah (perhaps willingly, perhaps not so), ticked off the romans and was executed. To say that there is a great deal of support for biblical history is misleading. There is a great deal of support for the broad outlines of the events described in detail in the gospels. Those accounts, however, as religous text written specifically for prolestizing are inherently suspect as source data.
Meh, quit being a jerk. There is a good point to be made here about the conflation of ‘events’ and ‘biblical description of events’.
Faith is another issue however. While there are all sorts of definitions running about, I like to stay grounded in common-use, so that people have some idea what I’m on about. And by common-use definition, faith means exactly a conviction in the rightness of something regardless of evidence for or against. It is based on trust, in a person or idea, and not on verifiable fact. I’ve got nothing against faith, or a lack of it, but it bugs me endlessly when people redefine things because they don’t like how it sounds otherwise.
its been pretty well established that the book named mark was written first long after jesus died and by someone that never even knew jesus. then the authors of luke and matthew used mark as the basis for their versions of “the truth” correcting mark’s mistakes along the way and reinterpreting what they thought was jesus’s message. then john is much later and has a whole different take on the stories. also there were dozens of other gospels that tell dozens of other versions of jesus’s life offering more contradictions, stories, and different interpretations.
jesus was probably a real person, but the gospels are not accurate history of his life in any way. they cant even agree on how he went to his death and what he said on the cross. of all things youd think theyd get that the same.
as far as the bible being accurate history, the garden of eden, noah, et al. are fairy tales. also the exodus never happened, the conquest of canaan never happened, and on it goes until you get closer in time to when the old testament was being written down and edited. then it becomes reliable.
Mark was probably written sometime between 60 and 80AD, and named for the disciple. It was created to set down the (to that point) oral early christian history. It’s likely that Luke and Matthew drew upon external sources as well as Mark, to what degree is debatable but it’s a stretch to say Mark was definitely their ‘basis’ without further debate.
You can look at the style, vocabulary and assumptions of the author of Mark (for example, what he does and does not feel it necessary to explain), and it seems to come from a coherent and belivable background. You can also look at suporting histories (eg. Heroditus) and see that the core of the jesus story has some external backing.
All the detail is highly debatable for exactly the reasons you mention, above and beyond the fact that most of it was explicitly created as propaganda to spread the word. But the core of the gospels at least does have some strong arguments to back it.
I find it interesting that the earliest versions of Mark don’t mention the Resurrection. They end with “And when they opened the tomb, it was empty.” If they were written around AD 60, then that would be only 22 years or so after the Crucifixion; it almost seems, to me, like they were paving the way not for the Second Coming as we know it, but the literal return of a Jesus who had survived the crucifixion. See Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”. The book is full of a lot of baloney, but it has some real thought provoking information as well.
The way I learned it was that Jesus had not, in fact *survived* the crucifixion as He had transcended it. There was no physical way He (as a man) could have moved the stone to get out (if He had survived), there were soldiers posted completely around the tomb because He had been saying that He would rise after three days, and the Pharisees wanted to prevent a grave robbery that would indicate that, and there was no back way out of the tomb. That’s how we learned it, anyway.
-
As far as the timing goes, 22 years after the death is still pretty close, as far as legend-telling and making a god goes. Even the earliest stories of Alexander the Great were several hundred years after the fact, if I’m remembering my history correctly.
Yep, Mark doesn’t cover it, but most mainstream Christology will argue that what came out of the cave was Christ as God, hence the miraculous departure. That whole field is such a massive mess, though, that it’s hard to make any kind of statement about it without having dozens of exceptions hanging out everywhere.
60 is a little early. Most mainstram theories gun for mid to late 70′s, but there are some respected arguments that suggest mid 60′s or so, or that parts were written in one place at one time and others later elsewhere. 60-80 is covering all the bases, more than anything else. In either case, it’s pretty rapid. How far that’s a reflection of a culture and people looking for a messiah and how far it’s due to something exceptional happening is very debateable.
I can’t remember the timing of the other books, but I do know that the book of John was written while he was on the Isle of Patmos, around or before 80AD-ish. I remember hearing that Mark was first, though, and the exegesis on that is that each book was written for a different audience, hence the slight differences in detail. The main stuff is the same though.
John’s date is really unclear, mostly because it comes from a very different background than the rest and is harder to place in relation to them. Also because it’s fairly clear that it was worked on over a longer timescale than the others. Whether it was written by John (the disciple), or named for him in honour of his teachings that inspired it is uncertain.
I’ve only really studied Mark, but Luke and Matthew definitely come after, in uncertain order. Likely Luke first, but we’ll probably never really know.
We (as in my sis and I) always heard it was Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, in that order. Then Luke went on to pen the Book of Acts, and then Paul took over. Or something like that.
Well, it’s not really known if the gospels were written by the disciples or inspired by their teachings and named for them.
But that’s as sensible an order an account as any, so someone did right by you in biblical history.
The one huge flaw in the whole Jesus story is that the Romans kept impeccable records, and there are simply no references to a Jesus of Nazareth, Yeshua bin Yosef, or any variant thereof being crucified within the time period he should have died.
There WERE, however, several spiritual leaders and messiah-types running around with followings within that 30 years or so. It’s probably a good bet that some of their stories were meshed together into a semi-cohesive legend, which led to the Jesus figure we now know. That would also explain the various contradictory behaviours, the lack of his name amongst the many criminals crucified for similar reasons, and historical incongruities.
Anyway, as long as David here isn’t trying to convince us that the Old Testament is historically accurate, I won’t push this debate too far.
“– they’re letting their philosophy drive their conclusions rather than the other way around”
As opposed to those who let their religion drive their conclusions rather then the other way around?
And there are vastly, vastly, vastly more who simply suffer and DIE whether they are prayed over or not. I don’t see a 1/1000th of %1 recovery rate due to some unidentified source as a miracle…just dumb luck….or a tease. A cure for cancer/aids/MD/CF/the common cold/a broken heart – now THAT would be a miracle. Why doesn’t this god guy, in all his compassion and everlasting love for his children, pop the code for these things into some researchers brain and end the suffering of poor broken children rotting away from cancer, wasting away from other diseases that have been visited on them because their names were randomly drawn out of some cosmic hat? For every so called “miracle” there are a million stories of unwarranted, undeserved misery, pain and suffering.
Let’s face it, kids….this god guy you speak of, if he/she exists, is an absentee parent who is allowing us to go to hell in a hand cart and REFUSES to help us work our troubles and stupidities out in such a way that we can learn to live together in a world that is fair to everyone. That’s what my Dad would have done. Damn shame we can’t elect him to the god guy post.
Seems like every time we seem to begin to get a handle on things, some new terrible wrinkle gets thrown into the mix to make things even worse.
Sorry dude….your god guy resembles Loki the Trickster more than anything.
brak, God has already paid the ultimate price for the death you (and all) deserve. His name was Jesus Christ and he became sin on the cross so that your sin could be forgiven and you could be redeemed fully. If you choose to spit on this gift you will reap what you have sown, and unfortunately all your “good acts” will be nothing but filthy rags.
I suspect you don’t like this message. Tough.
“That God character” asks where were YOU when he caused the eagles to soar and set the mountains in place.
Does it make me evil that I care a lot more about people suffering and dying needlessly than the state of their theoretical, problematic and confusing soul?
If God’s going to send me to hell for how I live my life, I will have no regrets on that score. It’s mine and I’ll live it by my lights and my own best judgement of what’s right and wrong.
I’ve always been unsettled by the “blood magic” message of Chrisitanity.
It’s a belief shared by many primitive culture over the centuries.
The Incas and Mayans shared this type of belief. Until the xtians came in and slaughtered them and destroyed their civilizations before they could mature and move forward.
Ok for the third time, it is Christians not Xtians.
See my answer above…..well, way above. Point taken. Sorry.
i love how god sent himself to earth to sacrifice himself to appease himself for us. and some sacrifice it was! dead for a couple of hours then he got to live in heaven with himself for eternity. god sure knows how to put himself on the line.
now maybe if he ended up tormented in hell for eternity as a sacrifice for our sins that might make the teeniest of tiniest bit of sense, but even then its completely ridiculous on its face.
Ron….you rock. Can’t you see him saying, “See?? I put my eternal pants on one leg at a time, just like you pathetic sinners!”
Anniee
For the death I (and all) deserve? And your license to judge was granted by who? I love how you xtian types are so bloody quick to condemn. Is this the mercy your god guy practices too? Is that what inspires you to wish death and damnation on folks like me who admit we don’t have the answers?
I live a decent life. I harm no one. I offer love before hostility. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do, not because of some amorphous threat from brainwashed idealogues like yourself. Who is the more moral, sweetie….the atheist/agnostic who leads an upright and moral life because it the right thing or the xtian who, like yourself, does it insincerely because of threats attributed to your god guy (threats from a god of mercy and love….hmm) and spends their energy judging and damning those whose attempts to explain the universe do not agree with yours?
I’m the first to admit I don’t have the answers. I also know that neither do you. So stop pretending. And stop judging.
And for those christians who are not like Aimmee…please, folks, do not include yourselves in my rant. Tolerance is a virtue we should all strive to promote. Sometimes I am as guilty of overreaction as anyone. I am not a churchgoer but I would NEVER be a part of anything that would seek to close your doors.
I’m not the one who says you and all deserve it, brak – shooting the messenger, you are. *I* don’t decide what the scripture says, get it? *I* don’t determine the content. It is what it is. *I* don’t damn anyone and I’m not (at least not now) the judge. There is an objective standard the bible has for these things, and I am merely stating what they are. You are free as everyone is to accept or reject them.
But what kind of person would I be if, when *the question arises*, I didn’t at least state the clear meaning of the text I believe (with good reason) to be absolutely true and accurate? One that warns of coming death and provides a way out, provides salvation? If I watched people dive headlong off a cliff as they *asked* what eternal life was about and didn’t bother to even tell them? Would THAT be moral and upright? No, “sweetie”, it would not. Nor would it be loving.
No, you mistake both the message, the content, the delivery, and the messenger. But atheists often do.
To be clear, I am an agnostic, not an atheist. Large difference. And your point about message/messenger is well taken. However, if you go back and re-read your post you will see how I could interpret it as hostile and accusing. Your tendency to name-call doesn’t help the message.
My point is that NO ONE truly knows what the secrets of the universe and life are. No one. Not you or me or the people (note the word people) who wrote your book. We, as a species, are incapable of understanding what is out there and how it works. We simply haven’t evolved to that point yet…might never. We are a rather stupid and pugnacious lot. Just because it is in a book does not make it the ultimate truth. All God’s chillun got a book. There are more books out there than you can shake a prophet at. It is insufferable arrogance to dismiss all other forms of belief as, what….heretic…evil…work of the devil….bad juju?
If we could all just sit back and say, ok-here’s what I think, what do you think?….and then LISTEN to each other maybe we could all find a common path that would eliminate the need for religions in general and all the violence , power struggles and intolerant claptrap that goes with them.
Mere belief does not make things so. We know nothing. We only have opinions and stories handed down since the beginning of the human race. Come on….knowing what we know about our stupid species….what really are the chances that we got this right?
And if there is a God, why does he have to live up to our standards?
And the bone head turd….don’t forget the bone head turd.
I’m all for being patient and enjoying the odd troll now and then, but after what, months is it now? of this tedious verbal abuse of people I genuinely admire, and petty insults, and generally intolerant masturbatory nastiness, I’m inclined to swipe back on occasion. Why shouldn’t I?
-sigh- agreed… “the messenger”?
it seems to me like Annie’s saying she’s become another prophet.
You’re reading WAYYYYY too much into it in that case, Tyler. What a stupid way to take it.
Yes pittypat I’m sure you genuinely admire Fister and other abusive people – it doesn’t speak well of you, you know.
After a mere two days of analysis on this board, I have come to the determination that Anniee is really a troll with the thin veil of a Christian mother over her (his?) posts to make them appear more legitimate and less troll-like.
As such, I suggest everyone on the board simply ignore her and move on with their day.
Wow you decided that after two days of analysis, eh? Aren’t you the clever one?
Get bent, assmunch.
See? Now watch carefully, kids, as I ignore the angry steer and slowly walk away without injury.
I’m not trying to bash you here, Anniee, but you’re preaching. Bordering on proselytizing.
Besides, it’s just as valid to say that Mithra died for your sins, or to ask if you’re spitting on Krishna’s gift of eternal love and tranquility.
Besides, many Christians believe that it’s acts, not words, that get one into heaven. Quite a few other religions believe the same… some even go so far as to say that it isn’t the religion that matters, but the deeds one commits during their life. That’s a much better message, I think, than “join my faith or burn forever!”
FYI: Hell wasn’t always written as being a permanent punishment. Originally, it was a temporary place to put sinners until they learned their lesson. Also, the “eternal torture” part is relatively new to the concept, at least according to what I’ve heard from my Jewish friends. It WAS their story first, after all.
“I’m not trying to bash you here, Anniee, but you’re preaching. Bordering on proselytizing.”
Not even close.
FYI: Of course I’m aware of this – Sheol, Gehenna, the Lake of Fire – this is not news to any bible student. Just like the Bosom of Abraham is not Paradise is not The New Heaven and the New Earth. This is evident from the story of Lazarus and the rich man. What takes place before the final judgment is obviously not what takes place after it. This is not difficult to comprehend.
May I also point out that your attitude of moral righteousness and religious devotion is offset by your habit of childishly calling people “moron,” “b*tch,” and other insulting names.
You can’t preach love & peace while practicing hate & anger. It makes you a hypocrite.
Also, you never responded to my point about the validity of other religions.
Nope. It’s not words OR acts.
Christians know that it’s SALVATION that gets one into heaven.
did you SERIOUSLY imply that you could ask a question directly for god there? also, i feel like you’re trying to guilt trip me into believing in the first paragraph. feels a bit preachy to me too, like stated below.
The answer to your question is simple. “I don’t know.”
Even if miraculous things do happen, that’s not proof of a Christian god any more than it is the divine intervention from Zeus or Odin.
The universe is vast beyond comprehension and we are an immeasurably tiny part of it. For all of our progress and achievements, we’ve barely scratched the surface. So to believe that a bunch of people who still through the Earth was flat had any significant insight into the creation of all things… it’s absurd.
There might be greater powers out there, but to think we have any idea what they are, what they can do, and what their intentions may be, that’s just supremely arrogant.
Very well said.
lulz. I like Norse Mythology but i’m agnostic, just felt like saying that, sorry
There are no miracle cures. If ‘miracle cures’ really worked, we would be studying them. The first Christian who was also a scientist and proved any of these cures worked, EVER, would get a Nobel Prize. Stories are known as ‘anecdotes,’ and aren’t data because they aren’t confirmed. Have YOU ever seen a miracle healing? No, or you would have mentioned it. Just stories, ‘some’ from people you trust.
Atheists don’t explain unexplained events, we just admit they are unexplained. Every single scientific advance came from something that was, at one time, unexplained. Just think about all the unexplained things that we’ve explained over the centuries using the scientific method. Ever hear of the ‘God of the Gaps?’ Look it up.
I don’t think so. There is no promise that they will work all the time. They aren’t like a drug that will have some known effect on your body. You are, essentially, asking a person (God) to intervene on your behalf, a person that has the power to cure but who sees a far, far bigger picture than you and may choose not to. Because miracles are not guaranteed repeatable, they cannot be studied in a scientific manner. Doesn’t mean they don’t happen though.
Have I ever seen a miracle healing? Not in the sense of an incurable disease. I have prayer for ill people before, felt quite intensely within myself during the prayer that they would be healed, and then found the next day that they had been. Now, you’ll tell me that was just a coincidence, and I can never prove otherwise.
What about those who feel quite intensely the presents of shiva? What do you do when they tell you that they’re the one with the real god and what you feel is made up? Do you just tell them the same in return?
This is what we see about that. And I am just explaining, not trying to start a flame war. Believe whatsoever you wish, but let others do the same.
MATTHEW 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Meh…I can only say that Jesus himself stated “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one can come to the Father, except through me” Each of us needs to choose to accept Him for who He says He is. He did not come into the world to condemn it but to save it. God made the way to Him. There is no other way. Does that mean I condemn others? Absolutely not, but I would be condemning myself if I reject the way that God provided for me. It may seem like semantics. That’s why is so important to really know who Jesus is. It’s the whole point of sharing this, Jesus – the truth, with others.
You know, scientists can induce a feeling of the presence of the divine by stimulating a certain part of the brain.
Seth, stop talking about your erections already!
LOL! And touche, so to speak
Neurotheology’s been around a while. Anyone who’s worked with epileptics know about this. It’s fascinating.
*knows
The question to me would be is it the feeling of the divine, the diabolical, or the carnal sensation of euphoria? I would say it’s the latter. You cannot substitute the real thing. If you do, you owuld only be playing God and then we would honestly start believing that we are gods. The theories in quantum physics, though, is now challenging the scientists to really think out of the box — that the unexplainable may need to be revered…may be there is a sovereign God.
Funny. You either believe (have faith) or dont believe. No one can confirm that while I was worshipping God during a miscarriage that he heard my plea (my asking that my children not see me in pain as they were on their way from school). While in pain (laborlike pains) and profusely bleeding, I had to wait to run to the hospital because they were on school buses. I decided that if the miscarriage was meant to be, then so be it but I will still worship Him for who He is. In the midst of worship both the pain and bleeding ceased and I was able to get up from the chair and walk towards the sink to wash dishes right before they walked thru the door. I believe in the power of God.
Oh good f–king gods. EJ, PLEASE tell me you went to a hospital as soon as possible. That was serious trouble!
Multi-Facets…I had to wait for my boys before my husband took me to the hospital. Yes. I did go and they confirmed I had a miscarriage, especially after I told them what came out of me. I had to return the following day for a DNC, but when the physician did the ultrasound he said he was going to try something (because there was a small remnant within – which later we found had the remains of the child). Evidently, what shifting was done finished the job and I didn’t need a DNC. Praise God! I count myself blessed. 7 months later, I conceived my daughter who is now 7 years old.
Were your kids were too young to be home alone?
Sorry to keep you waiting. I have more young ones and it was hectic Memorial Day. Yes…they were in elementary school at the time.
No rush, no worries. The youth of your kids makes this make more sense.
I’m honestly not faulting you for your faith, EJ, and I bet some divinity or another did give you a hand when you needed it. Just the thought of someone not getting help in time during something like that is kind of scary.
So where did you and your cancerous son run to?
So when you experienced a miraculous cure, you got up and washed the dishes?
It should be really really obvious to you why the rest of us don’t believe these claims.
I didn’t say it was a miraculous “cure”. You did. I believe the Lord answered my prayer and had mercy on me in the midst of my acknowledging that He is to be worshipped in spite of what we are going through. His mercy and love is very real. I can go on.
First: are these “miraculous cures” documented, or are they just hearsay? I mean, my own mother claimed to be “healed by Jesus” after a rather speedy recovery from what she was told was a terminal illness. Turns out it was a misdiagnosis by her aging family doctor; yet she still claims it was a miracle.
Second: what makes them more viable than similar accounts from people of other faiths?
Third: things happen all the time that we can’t explain… yet. A few centuries ago, nobody knew what caused the Plague. Now we do. Science never claims to have ALL the answers, and it likely never will. In those unexplained cases, all we can do is say, “We’re not sure right now.”
Copycat.
Oh, and science explicitly states it will never know if it has all the answers, or even the right answers. Only that the theories make accurate predictions in given circumstances. Science can’t look behind the curtain and see the way things REALLY work, but it doesn’t need to. It just needs to build models that predict the visible effects. Those models don’t need to be anything like the way things really are, as long as they make accurate predictions.
So far, nothing supernatural has ever been proven.
Actually, in the Smitsonian, there is a picture that is labeled as the only known picture of a supernatural being. There was what most call a halo over the head of a preacher, in 1958. The photograph was inspected by Robert G Lacy, head of the FBI at the time, for any kind of fakery, and none found. The preacher said it was the Holy Ghost, and that he saw it all the time. The link is the story behind it.
Honestly, that just looks like a badly developed photo… It’s a huge jump in logic to say that a white blur on a photo is an angelic Halo. Could be the devil standing on his head swirling his pitchfork really quick.
If the height of technology in 1950 (That’s the dating on the report on the site) couldn’t figure out what it was then it must be true!
(On a second look at the photo, the oval shape looks like the mouth of a large lamp or floodlight from the side)
I have read the whole story, but that is beside the point. It is in the Smithsonian as a supernatural being. Not the preacher, but the “halo.”
From what I understand, reading about it, and from others, the investigation was making sure that it wasn’t a background light, ect….. Mr Lacy’s statement was that “it was deffinately light striking the film.”
Call it a pheonomina, whatever, but it is certainly interesting, and in our Smithsonian.
Playing the devil’s advocate….. Satan is the Angel of Light. Could that be him, deceiving people? That is something EACH AND EVERY individual needs to decide for themselves about every preacher, religion, cause, global warming, Toyota, GM, UAW, lolipops ect….
It’s remarkably uninteresting. At best, it’s an unexplained defect in a photograph. If that’s the closest thing they’ve got to proof of a “holy spirit”, they’ve got nothing.
I’m not finding any good evidence that this photo actually is in the Smithsonian, either. Are you sure about that?
Well, it’s in the Smithsonian, so I has to be real.
/sarcasm off
Your photograph is very similar to a lot of photos of UFOs and ghosts: studied and ‘proven’ to be unfakeable. While I’m prepared to believe intelligent life evolved elsewhere, I find the idea that they’ve watching us for hundreds of years unlikely; I don’t believe in ghosts, and I think that a Divine Creator would either not leave proof of his existence, or would make it obvious he existed. Little blurs of light in a photograph seem a bit weak to me.
See.. here you’re assuming that ghosts are proof of a divine creator. Who said that is so? We don’t understand ghosts, but that lack of understanding isn’t a concrete license to declare it would-be proof of a god. I can understand that you probably made that inference through YOUR preset BELIEF (not fact) that ghosts ARE, as a fact, a property of an “afterlife” situation, and since the notion of an “afterlife” is a common incentive-tactic frequently shared by most religions… then therefore believing in ghosts is.. to you.. believing in would-be proof of god.
..Which you don’t want to do, because for no apparent reason other than because it’s convenient for yourself, you also believe that if there was a divine creator that they would leave absolutely no proof, or completely undeniable proof of their existence. This is your belief, and not the foundation of any major religion whatsoever.
So, please tell me that you can reflect back on this statement and understand that although you are just simply stating what you believe (no harm in that at all), that this sort of thing is why I can’t respect any sort of religious belief.
I know that that wasn’t the intention of your comment, but I’m just using this in context to continue this scattered debate between theism and atheism.
Sorry, but you’re falsely conflating my non-belief in ghosts and my non-belief in Christianity. In fact, if I were Christian, I would be forbidden from believing in ghosts.
I’m not entirely sure where you are going when you challenge the “preset BELIEF (not fact) that ghosts ARE, as a fact, a property of an “afterlife” “. The DEFINITION of “ghost” is the remnant of a dead person.
Really, I’m not sure what your point is. Elaborate a little and I’d be happy to respond!
“. In fact, if I were Christian, I would be forbidden from believing in ghosts.”
LOL. Wait what? How about the holy ghost? Souls..
perhaps I’m understanding you incorrectly (been up 21hours)
I think most people render it as The Holy Spirit; certainly, nobody believes it’s actually the remnant of a dead human being!
Hope you sleep well!
Where does it say you can’t believe in ghosts?
Oh, my last girlfriend used to obsess over this one (Seventh Day Adventist). I’ve never seen any passage that talks about it, and the Old Testament features prominent ghosts in a couple places, but the argument is that when you die, you either go to Heaven or Hell. God doesn’t give you the option to postpone going to Hell so you can roam the earth, and who would pass up Heaven just so you could rattle chains and freak out the living?
BTW, if you’re thinking that perhaps a Seventh Day Adventist might be a reasonable, live and let live kind of Christian, don’t be fooled. I found out they’re so Christian they think all other Christians are going to Hell, so a Pagan like me has no chance of living in peace with them!
Well, we consider SDA to be nuts, so I guess it’s all the same in the end
No need to be sorry.
My argument largely is that I don’t think that you should be defining ghosts. You can continue to do so, but you can also try to define dark matter, or maybe wormholes. Because you can find it in the dictionary doesn’t mean that we know what it is.
And Christians do believe in ghosts.. apparitions are defined by many names.. ghosts, spirits, wraiths, banshees, etc… either way, the Bible is filled with superstitious visitations, visions, and other manifestations of deceased individuals.
The fact is that we don’t KNOW what a ghost is. I have my theories, but they’re just that. The modern idea of a ghost is largely controlled by Duelists. That is, people that believe a person is in 2 main parts: the body, and the “soul”. But that idea is rarely questioned, and so the idea persists as fact, when.. in-fact.. it’s not. The ghost could be a number of things.. but the duelist approach is definitely not anything more than just a well-established idea.
If one accepts that the phenomena associated with ghosts or haunting actually exist (I remain agnostic about this), it does not necessarily follow that the cause is the non-corporeal remains of a dead human. It could just as easily be gremlins, goblins, kobolds, nature spirits, the Sidhe, unidentified non-corporeal life forms, or scientific experiments performed by invisible aliens. However, check out the definition of ghost:
1: the seat of life or intelligence : soul 2: a disembodied soul ; especially : the soul of a dead person believed to be an inhabitant of the unseen world or to appear to the living in bodily likeness
I’ve experienced my share of creepy phenomena, mind you. No, I won’t tell you about them; I’m all alone in a dark apartment and I don’t want to conjure them up again! I remain unconvinced that it has anything to do with discorporate humans however.
Well.. thats kind of ineffective..
Creator of the universe and all he has supposedly accomplished is a freaking halo on someones head?
Do something useful instead. Get rid of cancer for instance..
Anyhow, I seriously doubt the picture proves anything supernatural.
The difference between saying “It was a miracle” and saying “something damned odd happened” is that the miracle version is saying that ONLY a religious influence acted on the sick person, whereas the damned odd version leaves it open to anything.
Oddly enough, the American Sign Language signs for “religion” and “single minded” differ only in the location of the hand in relation to the body; the sign itself is the same motion…
Statistics. Say that a really nasty form of cancer has only a 5% survival rate. For 1 out of 20 people, it’s a miracle from heaven. For the other 19, it was just God’s will. Or it was the Devil’s fault, take your pick.
its up to you to prove a “miraculous” cure, not the other way around. and stories you heard from so and so dont count.
David, the problem with your assertion of miracles is that they don’t happen under circumstances that can be verified scientifically.
1) The vast majority of them amount to being hearsay evidence.
2) “Miraculous” cures of say, cancer, suffer as evidence, because we don’t really know what causes cancer to begin with. One might as well assert they prove the existence of invisible gremlins who mess with one’s body for good and evil.
3) Miracles are not limited to any one religion: most religions claim their share of miracles. Which religion is the one true religion, which have fake miracles, and how does someone who makes decisions using logic and reason decide which is which?
Well, obviously [my religion] is the one true faith, and everyone else’s religion is false. Because [my holy book] says that [my religion] is true. As [my religion] is proven the true religion, [my holy book] is the one true book.
Your joke would be funny, if only it were funny, if you know what I mean.
You’re so right, Seth: that’s probably the ONE common belief of all religions – that theirs is the ONE true religion.
I have another commonality, theirs is the one true religion; AND all other religions got it wrong, so come follow us.
Then why has god never healed an amputee?
Because He needs a starship. Super-bonus points to anyone who gets that one.
*in best Shatner voice*
What would God want with a Starship?
Subtracting -15 Internets from arimareiji and PS for quoting Star Trek V. At least quote a good one.
It’s not a good movie, but on the other hand it has Shatner in it. Pros and cons.
No argument here that V was miserably bad, but sometimes you can find gems inside of coprolites. Contrast with III, which was one of the best – but the only line that was even vaguely memorable was “5… 4… 3…”
“How many fingers am I holding up?”–Kirk, making the Vulcan hand sign
“That’s not very damn funny.”–Bones
Religion is nothing but a motivator. It gives people justification to do whatever they want to do.
If you want to help poor kids learn to read or feed the homeless, religion gives you a basis to do that.
If you want to treat minorities like crap and feel smug and self-righteous, religion gives you a basis to do that.
People can use “the will of god” to justify pretty much anything, good or bad. In either case, religion is nothing more than a scapegoat that people can point to and say “I’m doing this because…”
Eh, I like the Approach they used on the show numb3rs, religion is like a police that keeps the 90 percent of its units in check. But like any Organization there’s always that 10%…
…and they’re called “godless heathens.”
And DAMN do we know how to party!
And piss off fundies!
And boy can you debate well. I enjoy the concrete that you can present countering our leaps of faith.
Oh, calm down, junior. Some of it is meant to be funny, whether you think it is or not. The rest is my opinion, and, as I have read, you have your own. Go ahead and leap. I won’t try to stop you.
No, no, no. You misunderstood me. I was serious. Not sarcastic at all. I appreciate how my atheist friend keeps me grounded in many situations. Sheesh you try and be nice. I am not a fundamentalist or a belter at all, I am rather a really loose Catholic, questioning the faith I was brought up in, many times. Sorry you took offense, I meant it as a compliment.
LOL, sorry. Hard to distinguish between sincerity and sarcasm on the interwebs. Second time in this forum I’ve eaten crow. I’m stuffed!
Welcome to the club!
After-dinner mint?
I’ll foot the bill my ladies.
*grumbles*
He gets all the girls…
Huh huh. Huh huh. You said “loose Catholic.”
Hard to believe I know, but we exist.
Um, yeah. I was going somewhere totally different and far more offensive with that joke. So, uh, nevermind then. :-X
No, I got it, I just chose to steer it away from there with a serious response.
Very true, and you seem to have understood the point of the LOL. Funny how in that regard, religion is very much like alcohol – an excuse to do something you would have done anyway, for good or bad.
Did someone mention alcohol? I’ll drink to that!
There damn well better be a God and a Heaven because believing that my daughter is up there with Him is just about the only thing that keeps me getting out of bed in the morning.
And that’s how religion Should be followed.
Really? You find nothing else?
If your kid died, you’d get it.
I get it, Eric. Big hugs to you.
Ditto and a half, though there’s more than one way to get it. And I truly hope you never have to get it, 1984.
In no way do I mean to say that is a small event..
But the human coping mechanism, built in into us and anything with a piece of DNA is very powerful driving force to get us going on.
Btw, I’ve experienced loss (I know the tremendous pain).. although not a child..
Then you still don’t get it. I’d experienced tremendous loss before too (a close friend died when I was 18), and that was a papercut compared to this, thanks. And I still get up in the morning and get my other kids off to school and go to work, but many days I’d just rather not and would prefer to stay in bed instead. I’m told that it gets “easier” as time goes on. This just happened in February so the wound is still fresh. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I’m 100% serious that if you’ve never lost a child that you literally don’t and can’t get it. It’s a very exclusive club of pain and misery that I hope none of you have to face and if you have faced it, then you have my sincerest empathy.
Almost experienced it, which is why I always get a little cold inside when you talk about it.
*hug*
Thanks, and sorry to make you relive that. That’s an awful awful feeling. :-\ I always feel like I gain a little strength when I talk about it, so I try not to avoid it.
No worries, I can’t complain and my discomfort is no reason to avoid talking about it. It gives you strength and that is what is important to me.
-hugs-
thank you. you are a good example of how religion SHOULD be for people, not zealotry and killing…. and i’m so, so sorry that happened :/ i can’t even imagine that, and i personally think you have tremendous strength. may whatever deity and paradise that happens to BE up there bless you, man.
Oh, I do get it. My father died back in 1997 when I was 18 years old. Result? Lots and lots of gried.. it leaves scars.
But, fact is, still the coping mechanism within humans will make it possible to move on…And its unlikely only your belief..
Anyhow, if anything any deity deserves at least a kick or two in the nuts for letting it happen in the first place. This is at best incompetence.
eric, the losses i’ve suffered don’t compare to yours and i won’t pretend they do. but the sharpness of the pain does eventually lessen. it just takes time, sometimes lots of time. those edges are hard and it takes a lot of day to day living to wear down the jagged edges. allow yourself time to heal, that little angel didn’t worm his/her way into your heart overnight, don’t expect the pain to ease any quicker.
One could also ask. What good god would allow this world?
This is at best incompetence.
I’ve had family memebers die, too, and regardless, they’re worm food. That doesn’t change the fact they meant everything to me or were a large part of my life. It just means I have photos, memories and the stories from other family members to keep them alive. But they’re still organic, still decompose and still feed the trees.
Good for you. Now f*** off. My daughter is more than just worm food, and anyone who suggests differently to me unleashes the anger of a grieving father, which no human in their right mind would do willingly. I do not hold myself responsible for anything that comes out of my mouth (or fingertips) for suggesting that.
When you get into an argument, and whether you win or loose, check your feeling. Wind out of your sails when you have lost, and a triumphant bloated feeling when you win. This is a weird situation, why would someone feel good about winning? Because they were right. Why is it important to be right? Morals, society etc. Not to jump to the religious conclusion at an unexplainable situation, but some believe an argument is a battle between souls. Yes the notion that a scientist like Descartes got to. Explains the feelings, without having to rationalize it yes. It is nice for the believers not to always question. You win, your soul wins the argument and you feel better on the inside, rather than being a model citizen. Believers should not be criticized for being believers, nor should they pressure the non-believers to follow. To each their own and we will get along fine. Eddie Murphy put it best in his delirious tour, though he was talking about homosexuals at the time, but take a person as they are not what they believe in, that is how it should be.
There are a number of things that one can never win; there are only degrees of losing. War and divorce are the two most commonly cited examples, but an argument over whose emotions are superior is another good one… even more so than an argument over whose invisible friend is superior.
I.e, to copy from Eric, “Good for you” if you feel your way of expressing grief is better. Go write a book about it; maybe it’ll be a bestseller. But to tell someone who’s grieving to stop feeling as they do is very Phelps-ian.
It’s not so much about expressing grief as it is about a chemical breakdown of a human body. He said, “There damn well better be a God and a Heaven because believing that my daughter is up there with Him is just about the only thing that keeps me getting out of bed in the morning.”
It looks to me like he’s not too sure himself. He’s spending all this time, effort and emotion believing in something he damn sure hopes is there. This is my point.
Not once did I instruct him what to believe or how to feel. Death is the end unless you have irrefutable proof otherwise. And by “irrefutable proof”, I don’t mean Bible scripture or that you just “know”. Show all of us disbelievers a theorem, a law, a true photograph, a signed statement by god himself that, when touched, will glow and resound in the Hallelujah chorus.
Though what I said showed no emotion or remorse for either your or my losses, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. It just means I understand that my family members’ bodies are helping the earth in resupplying her nutrients.
Anyone may take all of this how he or she sees fit. I stand remains static.
That should be “my stand remains static”.
I’m not surprised that’s the case, but then again I doubt you expected me to be.
My own stance also remains unchanged: Telling someone who’s venting an expression of raw grief that they’re not being rational about it is tantamount to telling them their feelings are invalid.
Grief is inherently irrational. We know that death, heartbreak, and suffering are all inevitable. And we know that losing something means that for a time, we were lucky enough to have it. But that doesn’t keep it from hurting.
We all try to get past the irrationality in our own way, and move on with our lives. But we have to do it by experiencing it and accepting it, not by being logically convinced that we’re silly buggers.
Thanks, you said it better than I could’ve.
I don’t know the full depth of your grief, but I can at least relate and hope the best for you. Sometimes time just stops. The world stops revolving, and the insides of your heart feel like a pocketwatch wrapped in a handkerchief and repeatedly struck with a hammer.
I know I don’t have the answer for how to pick up from that, how to un-end the world or wave a magic wand and put all the shards back together. If someone does, good for them. But I don’t think any human has the answer for someone else. IMO, for anyone to think so would only show how much they don’t understand the subject.
It’d be nice if time would stop, but unfortunately it just keeps going. But I’m sure I’ll survive.
i love you a little, mr. super-logic-man.
you brightened my day quite a bit.
The premise of Christianity or any type of belief system is faith. I cannot show you a glowing scroll because there isn’t one. I can tell you about personal experience, personal views of God, and my own revelations about the situation, but asking me to produce something tangible is akin to me asking you that if you believe that a big bang actually produced what we live on today, then show me a picture of it. You can’t, even though there is scientific evidence that it *probably* happened.
-
Invalidating Eric’s feelings because you don’t share his particular faith is sick.
And no Christian has ever done this to anyone from another faith. Hypocrisy all the way around.
We aren’t talking about other Christians, and you’re changing the subject. I wasn’t defending other Christians, I was tell *you* that you are wrong.
And I apologized, but you didn’t see that, did you?
I did, but not until after I had posted. It’s a bit further down, and I was replying as I got to stuff.
Girls, there’s clearly only one way to settle this.
Mudbath catfight.
Rwar.
And since you two are talking about me, I get to be the ref. ::nods vigorously::
Of course I’m not sure of myself. Faith offers no proof of any kind. And no matter what your intent is, it’s rather tactless to talk about dead people being worm food when someone is talking about their daughter dying. I mean, honestly. Rationality aside, it’s just cold.
*gives Eric hugs and thanks him for being such a classy guy* Part of the reason I’m Agnostic is because I don’t like other people telling me what to think. I believe that no one, be they athiest, Christian, or anything in between, has the right to imply that you are somehow less then them for believing something they don’t. Your religion gives you comfort and I’m glad you can find some in this very difficult time.
Thanks, Jane, but generally speaking I’m far from classy.
I offer my sincere condolences, and hope that you find peace.
The pascal wager should mean something to you then.
I can’t believe Pascal’s Wager was ever committed to paper. Stick to maths, Pascal.
Like many scientists around the earlier times, he was not strictly a scientist they all dabbled. He did alot of experimenting, and well when one applies the Pascal wager to the existence of God there are 4 outcomes. 1) We believe and there is a God, we get eternal happiness. 2) We believe and there is no God, huge letdown. 3) We don’t believe, there is a God, damnation for all eternity. Unless we repent but that is another story. 4) We don’t believe, there is no God, we know we were right. This all happens after death so we can’t exactly flaunt it regardless of the outcome. You can apply this to any religion.
The criticism of the wager that I’d agree with runs along the lines of what a deity might choose to ‘reward’ you for after death, and if a calculated risk/return analysis is worth more than a good life.
I am not saying that one should choose to perform an analysis before choosing what way they want to live. They should live their life in the best way possible, I was merely responding to how the first gentleman said, “there dam well better be a God.” One shouldn’t live a good life just out of hope for a “reward” but rather just because one wants to. This is the other pascal experiment. Does one do a good deed to get a treat or just because it is the right thing to do.
Fair enough. I read in some approval of the wager, which is morally repugnant to me, my bad. I entirely agree that living your life by what seems right and wrong to you is much more important than a theoretical experiment.
Though I think he was keen on meeting god not to get his ‘reward’, but to ask him some tough questions. Which I have to agree is a very appealing idea.
Now I pose you this, for an omnipotent God would these questions first get annoying? and another would be Do you think he would cut you off with the answers mid question? Just to lighten the mood. May I ask why is it repugnant to you to approve of the wager?
I’d like to think that, if I’m wrong and there is a God, it wouldn’t hold my ignorance against me. And it’d be happy to set me straight.
I was unclear about the wager. Approval of it I would see as misguided, the wager itself as morally repugnant. I very strongly believe in Kant’s ‘summum bodum’ (sp?), the highest good. Whenever you do something good because you will be rewarded, that good act is diminished. Good for it’s own sake is the highest thing we may aspire to.
The wager to me seems like an attempt to reduce a moral choice to pragmatic egoism. That makes is very, very wrong, at least by my lights.
Summum bonum according to further research. The wager is actually a way in which to question one’s beliefs. It is not meant as an actual wager in which to enter into a religion. It is almost a reinforcement, though it gives you an outlook on what your options and outcomes are. Personally, I believe that using the wager to gauge what you should do is incorrect. Using the wager does break it down to what one thinks the best outcome for them is.
One thing I must add though, most religions offer a chance to apologize or repent. So in the end any choice is still an acceptable choice. One negating the existence of God is not being ignorant, ignorance is not getting all the facts about a topic and speaking falsely about it. One can’t prove or disprove the idea of God, it then falls on faith to believe or not believe. It has very little to do with knowledge so fear not, you are not in the wrong at all. (Not ignorant).
That actually seems admirable. Holding up a model of poor faith as a means of more closely examining what you believe. Using it to reinforce faith – ‘I’m not sure, but the alternative could end badly for me’ – I’d still see as misguided at best.
And I’m not sure I would necessarially repent if given the option. It would depend exactly what was involved, and what kind of god it was towards. Imagine repenting to John Calvin’s god…
I’d agree that you can’t prove or disprove God, because the term is just too ambiguous. I hold to atheism for moral reasons. To my mind, religion is like a moral crutch. It can be very helpful when you need the support, but if you come to rely on it it does more harm than good.
Just my perception based on limited study and small sample size, not meant as a jab at anyone else’s opinions.
What is it you don’t like about Calvin? A bit hellfirey?
Mainly the ‘God as an abusive father’ angle. I’d need to be convinced that a deity was worthy of worship, even if I was certain it existed. The attidute of Calvin’s god towards his children pretty much precludes that.
Holding up the model is fine, it is the using of it that makes the act of pursuing faith a wrong choice; as it has become an egotistical one.
I would agree with you in the repenting as well. If I believe in God and he turns out to be an a-hole, I think at that point I would go as far as to deny him, damnation or not. The opposite way is true, if I have to repent to an a-hole then I’ll walk my way down to hell. Thing is we are taught that God is nice, so one would think that he would accept non-believers and believers alike. If he is omnipotent he would know some of us need visual proof to fully commit and be ready for when the time came to bring us back in. That is all pending he actually exists.
I prefer to use rational thought first, rather than always depending on what my faiths morals are. For instance, if I kill someone I would go to jail. Well going to jail is bad, so I am not going to kill someone. The backup behind that is that I find it morally wrong myself to kill someone as they are human, and I know that no matter what they are doing I can’t deny that fact. Behind all that yes the religious morals say to love thy neighbo(u)r and that it is wrong to kill. With rational thought I can come to that conclusion just as well. For me when there is no logical explanation of why something just happened, I do not jump straight to the supernatural, but I will still know something is up. Either I can’t understand the whole situation or maybe it was a higher power. If I choose the higher power option, in my mind I always reserve the right to re-investigate the situation at a later time to find a rational reason.
That all being said, yes religion to me as well is a moral crutch, not to be depended on but to help us make it on our own. When we can’t find the strength by ourselves, it is there for us to help us along. For this I usually mean in times sorrow and such; like the loss of a love one. It is hard to have strength on our own and it is a nice notion to know that faith is there for us and the one who is no longer with us. To me it is a better feeling than thinking they are gone, now only decomposing and nothing more. My rational side always hits me with this during these times and I find faith consoles a bit better.
Honestly, a lot of my morality is drawn from good religous teachings. While I want to live by my own beliefs, refusing to learn from the wisdom of others is just arrogant. The bible, and other christian works, have a lot of good stuff in them.
Morally, I’d always start with rationality. Looking carefully at the available options with (hopefully) an inquiring and open mind, informing myself of the ins and outs of right and wrong. Then, in any given situation, I’d rely on the understanding I’ve built, coupled witha respect for others, to make a judgement as to how I should act. Broadly speaking, rational moral theory and intuitionist application based on that rational understanding. Moral judgements leap out of a black box, and under pressure you go with them. But you can take the box apart and make it better in your downtime.
I have a slightly lower view of logic than a lot of people. It’s a system we made up to understand our lives; it’s not always going to fit. I think someone else said it best elsewhere on this page, that science is never sure if it’s right, just that it’s less wrong than it used to be. Logic is the same way, at least to my mind. How we explain things is more a matter of personal choice, what makes sense and works, than anything else.
I haven’t lost an immediate family member, so I can’t speak from experience. But a rotting corpse and nothing more is far from everything a person can leave behind. That’s where I’ve taken my comfort when people I’ve known have passed away.
Nothing more I could say than that I agree completely. Who said a religious person and an agnostic couldn’t get along huh?
I’m an atheist (or a pantheist, depending on how anthropomorphic you like your deity). And I’ve enjoyed debate with everyone from Mormons to Jehovah’s Witnesses to your fine self.
We can all get along, and have a damn fun time doing it.
I guess the key is not to enforce your views upon the other and you shall be fine. Live and let live one of the best rules ever aside from the Golden Rule. I find myself a loose Catholic, bouncing back a fourth along the religious scale.
@purple switch: Either you are an atheist or a pantheist. The two are not synonymous.
Charro; I would call myself an atheistic monist. However, some atheists get offended by that, and call me a pantheist. It’s no great shakes to me either way, just failing horribly to be clear.
Purple, what is your definition of an atheist?
Someone who believes that god does not exist.
The tricky part is what you mean by god. Because the term is so flexible, I tend to go with’ whatever you say it means’. So an atheist is ‘anyone who believes that whatever they define as god does not exist’.
I’d define god as anthropomorphic, at least to some degree. I believe that such an entity does not exist. So I would call myself an atheist. But by other definitions of god, which don’t require anthropomorphism, I’m not an atheist, so it gets kind of complicated.
Now you’re just trying to be difficult
What, you think I’m into philosophy for the drugs and nookie?
Why yes, yes I do.
So which definition of “god” do you believe exists?
If you attribute human characteristics to the god, he regards himself as an atheist, if you simply believe in god being a force, like a higher power, law of nature, then he is a pantheist. I would describe him more as an agnostic as he feels there may be something when not humanly attributed. I find most pantheists are technically agnostics in waiting. I hope I don’t offend anyone. Specially for fielding your question purp.
No sweat. Talking about yourself is always fun, thanks for taking an interest.
I believe that everything is both part of a greater whole and composed of smaller parts. Any understanding we have of the world is just a framework built in our heads to help us live our lives. We pick and choose points on a continuum and say ‘that’s a table’, but it’s really just our idea of ‘a table’ correlating with a pile of stuff.
This means that everything taken together could be referred to as one thing. Some people would describe this as God. I’d say that it is ineffable, totally beyond any kind of definition, because all definition is derived from it (it being everything, after all).
I would also not attribute any kind of mind, will or plan to it. I also don’t think it acts in our lives or that we could relate to it. So I don’t think it qualifies as a God, just a very big lump of stuff all put in the same mental box of ‘everything’.
‘What does God mean’ is often a more interesting question than ‘Do you believe in God’. If anyone else has an interesting definition, I’d love to hear it.
As always well done ps.
Now to piss everybody off or at least annoy them.
Omnipotent means all powerful, not all knowing. Omniscient means all knowing. And no, they aren’t interchangable.
And technically an atheist would believe that nothing deific exists at all, therefore it could not be synomoous with any other “theist” label. If you say you are conditionally atheist, then all you are admitting is that you don’t know and therefore you fall into Agnostic, without passing go or collecting 200 god points.
And other theism would be having a definite belief which is where the labels get their meaning.
Omnipotence implies the ability to make yourself omniscient. If you had other traits (say, omnibenevolence) that made omniscience necessary, then your hand would be forced. That’s how I read omnipotence = omniscience, though yes it is unclear and confusing. I might also be massively overanalyzing a typo.
An atheist must believe that nothing they define as a deity exists. Change the definition of deity to air, and there are no atheists. Change it to unicorns and there are a lot more atheists. Because there is no universally accepted definition of ‘God’, how you describe your beliefs may well differ from how others describe them.
I definitely describe myself as atheist, and other people have definitely described me as a pantheist, because we had different definitions of god.
It really sounds to me as though you have made your own definition of god, and therefore are not an atheist. I would also put you in the pantheist category, or the agnostic category since you don’t seem so clear on what your definition of your own god is.
I would also say it seems as though you consider yourself atheist because you don’t believe in organised religion and their view of god.
That’s how I interpret what you have said.
Ah, but here is the catch. The definition isn’t that mutable.
Atheism is simply the denial of all things divine. No higher power, period. Be it a rock, a clock, a glock, a stoat, a goat, a turnip the size of a moat.
If you tell the atheist that God is air, they will tell you that air is air and that God is not air as he doesn’t exist. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. But, it remains a pleasant smelling plant. It is what it is.
If you show an atheist a rock and say it is a god or the god, you will be thought a nut, not a prophet. It is because they do not believe in the concept of a higher power. That is the Entire Point of atheism is that you don’t believe. Changing the definition for a semantics debate doesn’t change their basic belief/disbelief that there is no higher power in any form.
Ergo, if you believe in a higher power, you are at least an agnostic as agnostics believe there is something out there, they just don’t know what it is.
As for your statement about atheist functioning off what their definition of a god, then changing the definition wouldn’t matter as they are functioning off their own instead of whatever anybody else thinks.
So the question simply is, do you believe in any form of higher power that you would call a God or the god?
If yes, then you’re not an atheist. Doesn’t quite get any simpler than that nor does it get more complicated.
As for omnipotence, the word itself is a paradox but it technically means all powerful while omniscient means all knowing.
Power doesn’t mean perfect being or even intelligent enough to use it effectively. Sure you could make yourself all knowing but would you know to do so.
Think of it like a metaphorical battery. All that power but no guaranteed will. Same for Omniscience. All knowing doesn’t mean power or will to use it. So they are indeed separate as neither is a guarantee of the other.
Example: Omnipotent rock. All that power but the brain of a rock.
Omniscient rock. All that knowledge but no power to act.
Charro: I’m confused. Anyone who defines God is a theist? Anyone who isn’t a strict materialist is a theist? I’m not sure I see where you’re coming from there. Though I have no issues with being called a pantheist, just trying to understand why you’d put it that way. How would you define a theist (and by extension, God)?
I have made my own definition of god as accurate as I can, and I do not think it matches up to anything that exists. I have also made the best understanding I can of what exists, which I don’t think matches up with the idea of god as I understand it. So I say I don’t believe in God, and am therefore an atheist.
DWN: Omni-anything is a massive intellectual minefield. I prefer to hide behind mysticism, and just call up the ol’ ineffability when I have to. But I have nothing but respect for those who try to make those things make sense.
You define an atheist as someone who believes “there is no higher power in any form”. So you’d say anyone who believes in anything not part of a strictly materialist viewpoint is a theist? What qualifies as a higher power?
It looks to me like my defining god and your defining ‘a higher power’ amount to the same thing, just with different terminology. We decide what we think god is, see if it’s there, decide it isn’t and then call ourselves atheists.
The definition of higher power is rather simple. It is qualified as something that you must have faith in for it to exist to you. God, Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster, the spirit of all things, etc. Those are just labels. The idea of atheism is that none of them exist.
The materialistic definition doesn’t matter as much as the faith component or the supernatural component of the higher being/state.
So if you think there is no God as we define but believe something is out there, then you are agnostic not atheist. You still believe in something beyond yourself and the reality around you.
An atheist doesn’t believe in anything beyond the normal state of existence. That’s pretty much the point.
If you believe in some form of power outside mortal comprehension, then you are at least an agnostic.
As for omnipotence vs omniscience, I simply go for what the words literally mean. The Greek Gods were a great example of the differences. Zeus was considered all powerful but he certainly wasn’t all knowing.
@ death, taken from Wiki on the definition:
However, religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods, have been described as atheistic.[7] Although some atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism,[8] rationalism, and naturalism,[9] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[10]
Ah, I see why we disagree. I think that logical scepticism is irrefutable. That is, I think that if you assume nothing, you know nothing. You have to start with an assumption (say, the asumption that you can trust your senses) before you can know anything at all.
By your definition, this means that everything is a higher power to me. I don’t think anything is proven, it is all a matter of faith. I have faith in my own best judgment of what exists, and I have faith that pasta will be tasty tonight.
I would argue that “the normal state of existence” is a set of asumptions, like any other, and to set it apart as special is faulty logic. Not intending a dig at pragmatism here, just explaining why I disagree.
Buddhism is agnostic, not atheistic. Buddha said that the existence of God, or an immortal soul, or an afterlife, isn’t important.
{http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Atheist}
Just as valid as Wiki.
Seth, there’s a massive distance between what Buddha said and what Buddhism is now. There are monotheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, agnostic and atheist flavours.
“Charro: I’m confused. Anyone who defines God is a theist?”
You’re confused? I’m confused. The word “theism” means “god”. You said you don’t believe in anthropomorphic gods, but you believe in other definitions of god. That makes you a theist. Defining god doesn’t make one a theist. Believing there is a deity out there, in there, somewhere, makes you a theist.
“Anyone who isn’t a strict materialist is a theist?”
No, that’s why we have agnosticism.
“I’m not sure I see where you’re coming from there. Though I have no issues with being called a pantheist, just trying to understand why you’d put it that way.”
I’m reading what you say and you seem to contradict yourself. See above where I said you don’t believe in anthropomorphic gods, but other definitions of god. That precludes you being an atheist.
“How would you define a theist (and by extension, God)?”
As I said, a theist is one who believes in one or more deities. A Deity is a supernatural, supreme, immortal being.
“I have made my own definition of god as accurate as I can, and I do not think it matches up to anything that exists. I have also made the best understanding I can of what exists, which I don’t think matches up with the idea of god as I understand it. So I say I don’t believe in God, and am therefore an atheist.”
This contradicts with your earlier statement that you do believe in non-anthropomorphic god, or gods.
It seems that you are saying you do not believe in the traditional accepted views of god so call yourself an atheist. But you, in your other writings, seem to believe “god” is in all things, or is all things. That makes you a theist, not an atheist.
@seth, just quoting. Though like the article says there is not strict sect that atheists stick to.
Ugh, I do hate when comparisons are flawed.
Faith in your pasta isn’t the same as faith in a higher being. The reasoning is that your faith in your pasta is based on past experience, which is based on trial and error on your part. Perhaps it is faith in the abilities of the one making the pasta as you have tasted their cooking before.
Either way, faith in your dinner is based on a physical manifestation of something you have experienced before or the skill of somebody you have experienced before. You understand the concept of pasta and thus if something goes awry, you can step back and figure out what literally went wrong with the preparation.
With the faith in a higher being, you have no measurable past experience. You haven’t seen, eaten, or smelled the higher being or beings as you have Pasta. The two are incomparable.
Faith is about belief that can’t be measured. You don’t have faith in your pasta, you have the sum of past experiences telling you what outcome to expect.
As for the normal state of things, I am not talking about the hippie dippie make your own reality. I am talking about the realistic expectation that if you drop a rock on Earth while standing rightside up, the rock will fall towards the large mass beneath your feet instead of zip around, pimp slap you, slander your ancestry, then shit on your shoe.
The normal state of things is the basic measurable causes and effects of the giant rock we reside on. I use the word normal as it was the most practical. If anything, it is completely and utterly less special than anything else as it is constantly measured and accounted for.
Every step you take, every drink you consume, every cause and effect you endure is harsh, cold, uncaring reality.
Sure there is something more, this I wholeheartedly believe, but I don’t presume that my belief changes anything under my feet.
So don’t patronize me by saying you have faith in your dinner. You have a sum of past experiences leading you to a reasonable conclusion. Faith is something more, which is why its mysticism has held us for all these years.
So death, you are an agnostic?
Charro: On definitions of God, I’d say that the term in common usage implies anthropomorphism, and I’m fond of basing my definitions in common usage. In my eyes, it’s not god if it’s not anthropomorphic. It might be supernatural, or a supreme being, or perhaps even a deity, but it’s not god.
“It seems that you are saying you do not believe in the traditional accepted views of god so call yourself an atheist. But you, in your other writings, seem to believe “god” is in all things, or is all things. That makes you a theist, not an atheist.”
I base my definition of god off of tradtional accepted views. I don’t think that god is all things, I think that all things are one, which I wouldn’t call god. Hence atheistic (no god) monism (all things are one).
Some definitions of god makes ‘all things’ have to be god, which is why by those definitions atheistic monist is a contradiction in terms, and I’d be classified as a pantheist. I disagree with those definitions, but have no objection to being understood in terms of them.
Nope, I’m a cephlanecrodedrapanpizzatheist.
Yes, I identify as agnostic. I think something is definitely out there but I can’t presume that it gives a damn no matter what we do.
I apologise if I came off as patronizing. That wasn’t my intent, I was trying (badly) to explain how the two, in my opinion, are alike.
The basis on which I trust my past experience IS faith. I don’t unconditionally believe in my senses. I have reason to doubt them. So, when I choose to act in accordance with the evidence they present, I am acting on faith. I can’t prove they’re right, so I have to judge. That judgment will be informed by the sum of my past experiences. But it is still a judgement. I am deciding that it is likely that things will stay like they are.
Besides, I’m the one cooking, and faith in my skills would be wildly misplaced.
In the same way, when I say ‘I have faith in my best judgement of what exists’, I am expressing a faith in my reasoning. I am looking at the logical arguments available to me and making a judgement based on the sum of my past experiences in the field, and my best analysis, as to what is likely to be the case. Just because I’ve experienced one with my senses and the other with my intellect doesn’t change anything. If anything, I probably have more faith in my intellect than my senses.
I do have a hippie dippie view that the ground under your feet is there for you because you believe it is. You could choose not to believe in it, and it would not exist for you. That’s insanity. On a much smaller scale, there are all sorts of verifiable cases in everybody’s life where what they expected affected what happened, because of how they approached it and what they were predisposed to see. Materialism isn’t necessarily right, it’s a point of view.
Unfortunately, reality isn’t what you make of it. It was there before you and will exist after you. Sure you can interpret until you are blue in the face but a lot of it boils down to what we laugh on Engrish.com. Believing that the ground would stop existing if you stopped believing in it is a certain level of arrogance that I have always found laughable.
The daydream isn’t the ground beneath your feet, it is the thoughts in your head that tell you they matter.
However, you are again clouding hypothesis with faith. With your experience, you can conclude that with a certain degree of possible failure that you can follow directions and come to a conclusion that will be a good dinner. You can predict this because others have done it. You can measure this because there are volumes to measure and account for. If anything, cooking is a science experiment that you eat when you are done.
You can’t really measure faith and expect accurate predictions. There is no formula or literal documentation. Even something like the bible is a collaborated effort of men telling what they feel is right and true, and a lot of it contradicts.
Either way, while you may have more faith in your intellect over your senses, you are still following a predetermined formula to make the pasta with reasonable expectation of outcome and if you are wrong, you can deduce what steps you messed up.
You don’t do the same with the idea of faith. Faith is there because you believe. Pasta is there because you made it happen.
Please don’t talk like Materialism is a fact. It is an opinion. To state your unproven opinions as fact is highly arrogant, and offensive to boot. Try proving that the ground exists anywhere outside your head, and you’ll see that there’s a lot more going on here than you might assume. And if you want to dismiss a history of debate between some of the most intelligent people who have ever lived, well, that’s your call.
I follow a prescribed formula of logic to arrive at my conclusions regarding existence. I don’t assume, or make leaps of faith. I apply rationality to the data available to me, and see what I can prove. The faith is in my ability to apply rationality, aka my faith in my intellect, and in my assumptions.
This process of rationality lead me to conclude that you can’t actually prove anything beyond all doubt, because you can always doubt the methods of proof. So I decided to use the best methods of analysis I have (logic) to assess different assumptions and evaluate the structures of thought that arise from them. I then chose the assumptions that seemed to me to lead to the best structures, and went with them.
That’s what I mean when I say everything is faith. You start with an assumption, and then build from there. So it’s all built on your faith in that assumption. But the quality of the methods used for building must be the highest, and you don’t choose them on faith. Which is why the process of arriving at conclusions is not faith based, it is the premises that set you down that road that are.
Okay… So we are both standing on the same ground and we are both breathing air.
I’m glad we share the same opinion.
As for the intellectuals who have debated the existence of the ground, tell me where they are now? Either they are dead, mostly likely cremated or otherwise put into… The ground. Or they are alive and residing on… The ground.
So I am glad that we are ALL sharing the same opinion. However, I will state this for the record.
Opinions allude to choice and thus it stands to reason that choice would indicate multiple choices and thus multiple answers. So I ask you, if the ground is an opinion, how come we all still have this same “opinion” no matter how much it is debated?
Perhaps consensual reality is not necessarily the same as reality.
Either way, it messes with Purple’s point as despite everything, we are all on the ground. That is, assuming that none of them were launched into space.
The only real way for Purple to convince me of anything here is to disprove what I am standing on. There is a drastically inherent flaw to philosophy courses as pretty much everybody I have seen going through them or coming out of them believe they form their own reality. Then they tell you that the ground is only as real as you make it. Unfortunately they are all stuck on the same ground so I can only just laugh at them when they get to this point.
I’m not the one saying I will the ground into existence but I am the arrogant one. Classic.
I don’t share your opinion. You have dismissed all alternatives as at first ‘hippie dippie’ (which I though was pleasantly endearing), then ‘arrogant’ (which I found lightly offensive), then ‘laughable’ (which I object to). I have asked you to be polite. I’ll keep asking, athough you’ll probably keep ignoring me.
So you’re standing on the gound . How do you KNOW that? For sure? Because you see it? Feel it? Have your senses never lied to you? It is inconcievable that they could be misled?
For that matter, what is the ground? You have an experience of it, sure, but that’s all. You can’t tell if that experience was caused by ‘the ground’. And you can’t tell anything about it, because you have no means to be sure that experience actually relates to anything at all. All you have is a faith in this link between your experience and this unknown, unknowable ‘ground’ floating around somewhere out there.
So tell me about the ground.
The ground is the concrete, top soil, crust, and other geological elements that constitute the floor beneath me. It is that which has shown my blood when it has been knocked from me. It is what caught me when I fell. It is what I saw seeds planted into and watched life creep back out of.
It is painfully knowable. It will be there until it is removed when this planet blows up. It isn’t floating out there somewhere, it is right beneath you.
As for it being a concept, no it really isn’t. Fall down and not get hurt. Hurl yourself from the top of a flight of stairs and then disbelieve. You do that and send us the youtube of it as proof.
If my opinion isn’t fact than it will be easy, painfully easy, to show me that it is just opinion. Also, what are you typing from, what is that residing on, what are you residing on?
So by all means, I give my answer and while my senses can lie, they also can tell the truth and will do so when provided with consistent and measurable stimuli.
So the question is, what do you call what we are standing on or my chair is standing on in my case? Are you floating? Are you merely a figment of the internet? Are you laying down, sitting up, standing at attention? Please do tell me what is that hard substance beneath your feet and why you think our senses are lying?
Allow me to step in as a mediator if you please. You two are replicating one of the oldest arguments in the book. That between a realist and a an Epistemologist.
Here is the argument.
The argument from illusion is an argument for the existence of sense-data. It is posed as a criticism of direct realism. Naturally occurring illusions best illustrate the argument’s points, a notable example concerning a stick: I have a stick, which appears to me to be straight, but when I hold it underwater it seems to bend and distort. I know that the stick is straight and that its apparent flexibility is as a result of seeing it through the water, yet I cannot change the mental image I have of the stick as being bent. Since the stick is not in fact bent its appearance can be described as an illusion. Rather than directly perceiving the stick, which would entail our seeing it as it truly is, we must instead perceive it indirectly, via a sense-datum. This mental representation does not tell us anything about the stick’s true properties, which remain inaccessible to us.
With this being the case, however, how can we be said to be certain of the stick’s initial straightness? If all we perceive is sense-data then the stick’s apparent initial straightness is just as likely to be false as its half-submerged bent appearance. Therefore, the argument runs, we can never gain any knowledge about the stick, as we only ever perceive a sense-datum, and not the stick itself.
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_illusion”
Categories: Epistemology
So what purp is saying basically is that you have been taken in by the illusion of what you think the ground should be like. You are arguing the traits you believe it should have. He is going from the more theoretical side where he even questions the existence of the perceived ground. That is where you 2 differ. Not that much. One trusts his senses, the other says the senses cannot measure the truth only what one believes to be the truth.
I hope I have summed you both up correctly.
I’m not saying our senses are lying. I’m saying we don’t know, we cannot know. I am saying that neither of us can be sure. You can choose your standard of proof, and if experience is good enough for you, then I guess there really might be a mine under every loose stone a ptsd vet passes, or the abused girl’s father really might be outside her door every single night, even though he died years ago. I hold the truth to a higher standard.
I don’t know if there is a real ground. All I know is I have this experience, that I expect will behave a certain way. It comforms to my expectations. My belief has no effect on the ‘actual’ ground, if it exists. It just determines if I will see ground.
Truth is not a democracy. It is not determined by what most people think, or what we see most of the time. It is determined by facts and by logic. And facts and logic will not prove for you that the ground exists.
Thankyou emperor, that is indeed the argument I was putting forward. I enjoy philospohy, and I enjoy writing, so I was taking some pleasure in putting it in my own words, as best I can. But that is exactly what I am saying. It is not a closed question, debate is very much alive and different perspectives have arguments for and against them. That’s all.
@Emperor, Leader of the Resistance: Thank you for pointing out the obvious and mediating nothing. I definitely appreciate the condescension of assuming I don’t know what argument is being used.
I get it, trust me, I do. I just don’t agree with it. Thus the discussion. Next time, actually add something instead of pointing out the obvious like it will magically make us stop.
As for the idea of it all being an illusion, that still boils down to proof. I really am reasonable. Show me proof and I will be happy to take on the information and process it like any rational person.
However, stating that I am delusional with no more proof than theories amounts to nothing in a debate. The sad and morbid fact, one I find amusing, is that I could technically bash somebody’s skull into my “opinion” as it were.
You also forget that the stick is still straight, no matter the refraction of the water. You can pull it from the water or submerge your head and look at the stick. Either dispels the illusion.
So what needs to happen is proof that I am delusional. If the ground is unreal, go through it. My petty little mind will see you go through it and realize that it isn’t real, then perhaps I will go through.
Conclusion: Saying reality isn’t real without proof other than empty theories is poor debating tactics. It is why I find it laughable.
Why is it that theory is necessarially empty, and the only thing you can trust is empirical proof? You are saying ‘show me my kind of proof’. There is none. My whole argument is that nothing can be proved or disproved, in that way. I am presenting you with another kind of proof, which you are dismissing out of hand because it’s ‘just a theory’.
Okay Purple, now you are really insulting my intelligence.
You’re comparing people who have been hurt or traumatized to the “belief” that the ground isn’t there. Um, no. That’s disgusting cruel to those who have actually been traumatized. The little girl is functioning off fear from past experiences, she knows it isn’t real, however her mind won’t let go of the memory so she reacts like it will happen despite her mind telling her otherwise. Same for the soldier, he knows there isn’t mines but he has that trauma and fear that still grips at him.
I know pointlessness of using past experiences but I will go ahead anyway. In college, I was actually stuck in a situation where I wouldn’t get a decent meal for about four days at a time. Then I would walk 15 blocks to school and 15 blocks back with whatever weight was on my back. I was already thin when I went and then lost 40 lbs on top of it. I was dying, slowly. My dormmates left for a weekend when I had brought some Romero classics so I had the zombie fun all to myself. However, I snapped and for 30 hours, I believed I was the last person on Earth, couldn’t sleep or barely even move. Eventually I heard talking outside and it snapped. I understand the illusion and what fear gripped my head. Unfortunately the events of my earlier life had set me up for such paranoia. The abuse, the sexual assault, the loss of time that I still experience. All of it left me with a paranoia.
I honestly do understand the idea of something out to get me despite all the understanding in my rational mind that I shouldn’t be paranoid. My experiences and thus my illusion tells me otherwise. I am fortunate that I can see that illusion but it doesn’t stop the actual reality that I can still see.
The sad and very annoying thing is that I already tried to explain that the truth doesn’t care. Reality, as it were, is very knowable to even a point where you wish you could cut off all your senses just so you can stop it all.
So don’t give me your unknowable truth speech or how there is no way to know. Yes there is. Pull the stick from the water, submerge your head, fall down some stairs, get stabbed, etc etc etc.
Truth doesn’t give a damn, reality doesn’t give a damn, and they certainly don’t bend to the ideas of opinion. I never said it was a democracy. I said fall down some stairs. Even if it is an illusion, reality can still be seen by interacting with it. Thus the stick from the water or the submerging of your eyes to see the truth.
Trauma and the ground are different things. I’m waiting for the video.
Get it or not death, you showed no acknowledgment of what he was attempting to converse. There is no need to snap at someone who is only attempting to bring the emotions a little lower. Please don’t go quoting condescension when you go and respond with such a pious tone like that. I was merely alluding to the argument which he was basing his argument off of, not what you two were actually arguing about.
Funny how since I did not back-up your side with a quote how angry you were and how respectful he was.
“You also forget that the stick is still straight, no matter the refraction of the water. You can pull it from the water or submerge your head and look at the stick. Either dispels the illusion.”
No the point that one can perceive the stick, the same stick in two ways without altering the stick is what makes us question which form is the true correct form.
So what needs to happen is proof that I am delusional. If the ground is unreal, go through it. My petty little mind will see you go through it and realize that it isn’t real, then perhaps I will go through.
Proof here is the vibrational theory. Yes it is a theory, just like what you are defending, (realism).
Conclusion: Saying reality isn’t real without proof other than empty theories is poor debating tactics. It is why I find it laughable.
Assuming and not questioning is the real laughable act. Just accepting the reality that you perceive is real without tangible beyond a doubt proof (hint: that’s impossible) is just as incorrect. The thing is, at least he is questioning, not sitting comfortable and pompously on a throne of an I know it already stance.
If you’re experienced a completely convincing delusion, what’s stopping you making the mental leap that you can be convinced of a delusion? For all I know I am lying in a hospital in a vegitative state. I can’t prove it one way or the other. I know the limitations of my mind, and I acknowledge them. I admit that I can’t be sure. Hell, I can provide proof (like you just did) of the many ways the mind can be decieved.
Maybe you see me doing that as horiffic because you see one as ludicrous and one as real, and think I’m denigrating the real one. I’m trying to make you see that you can’t pick and choose, that if one is real then you have to accept that the other might be real.
You believe in the ground. You will never see anyone vanish through it because of that belief. The ground is real. No-one will vanish through it because of that. Both are perfectly reasonable explanations of the facts. Why is it that one is unacceptable?
Maybe you think that this is just the product of a sheltered mind, that I dont know the world and so don’t accept it’s reality. I’ve felt my body start burning muscle for fuel because I wasn’t feeding it. Maybe you think I’m hiding in comfortable theory, that doubting the world makes it easier to bear. Knowing that you can never be sure, that your deepest convictions are just what you’re keen on, that you might really be alone, can be a hard thing to bear.
I have shown you what I think are compelling arguments for my case. I have tried to do so in a civil manner. You have chosen to ignore them and demand the only kind of proof you’ll accept. Please try and see that you’re the one insisting that his perception is right, and I’m saying I might be right, that there isn’t absolute proof one way or the other.
Well said purp.
Reality is subjective anyway.
You know, my mom is a schizophrenic and when she was in her full blown psychosis, she was convinced that there was a mind reading machine orbiting the Earth and that there were messages in license plates. That was her reality.
Well, in my reality, there are no mind reading machines and no license plate messages. But there was no amount of convincing to tell my mom that my reality was more real than hers.
At any rate, I see both sides here. I’m inclined to side with DWN, because even though I know reality is subjective, it’s MY reality and I will stubbornly stick to it until someone proves me otherwise. And in my reality, the ground is the ground and it will always be there, because I have proved that with trial and error.
Those are my $.02
I will just outline this and let you both pick and choose what you think applies to you.
1. You’re still being condescending.
2. I already knew what Purple was saying. There was no need to dicker or pet him over the fact that I knew what argument it was.
3. You were still stating the obvious and expecting me to thank you for it. What exactly were you expecting?
4. My annoyance was that you didn’t add to the argument but apparently expected to be thanked and considered it moderation.
5. You assume I have never questioned my existence just because I didn’t come to the same conclusion. And you call me arrogant. Wow.
6. People have actually come out of comas. Have a chat with them and get back to me before you make that assumption.
7. People do vanish through the ground. See quicksand and other geological phenomenon.
8. You belabor under the comfortable assumption that your theory can never be proven or disproven, therefore I have to be the ignorant one. Sit in your tower of theory and assume I can never understand yet I am the arrogant one.
9. The problem is that I am willing to accept that I might be wrong. Fall through the ground, believe it or not, I am not as closed minded as you think nor has my life been as mundane as you both assume. Nor do either of you believe that I ever questioned existence nor do you believe that I might be right and that what you see is painfully what you get.
So have either of you, instead of patting each other on the back and believing yourselves wiser than others, ever stop to try and figure out how to dispel the illusion? Have either of you even tried? What burns me is that I am honestly willing to take that leap of faith and test what I believe and make sure of what I know. Have either of you tested your beliefs or shall you continue to tell me how I just don’t get your circular reasoning and can never get it?
Quick trying to wow me with theory and actually tell me what you have done that helps reinforce your belief in something else. I’m interested in experiments, experiences, and actual tests of self, not the tao of how not to believe.
“reality is subjective anyway”
That’s everything I’m trying to say, right there. Everyone sees their own reality. I have no issues with whatever anyone else sees. I just get my hackles up when someone starts calling my reality laughable, especially when it’s someone who’s proven themselves intelligent and amiable in the past.
And I find my hackles get raised when I am confronted with arrogance in assuming that everything I believe is an illusion without actually backing the claim.
If I walked up and said that the sky would fall tomorrow after turning into a smiling face shaped from the anus of George Carlin, I would expect that I would be asked to present more than my feelings on the matter.
You make a statement and are asked for proof. You give theory and expect it to jive. I counter said theory and all I get is that I can’t understand.
Am I the only person not seeing this as annoying debate tactics?
Ok. I did not commence the condescending response, I merely was outlining both arguments. I have done mediating before in arguments, that is one of the main jobs. I am not to be attacked as that just drags me into the argument. Which you did and proceed to do.
Here comes my example forthwith: I just jumped. I flew through the ground. You don’t see me do it, you see me land. Purple sees my fall through. Do you see why I can’t prove to you. As open minded as you wish to be you have your present reservations of what reality allows and won’t no matter how hard you try let those go.
Now, you actually think I sided with him, that assumption is a horrible one. I also believe in reality. I like it, I appreciate that every time I take a step my foot comes into contact with the ground. Sometime I think about the possibility that I did not get up and this is all a dream, yes even though I am thinking about this, it doesn’t mean my mind is not tricking me. I suppress those thoughts as I enjoy being at peace. In a philosophical debate, much like this one I let it out. To keep a light tone to it all I thank people for their responses, respect them, if I do not agree I take it with a grain of salt and know they truly do not intent to offend me. You seem to be stacking up the ad hominem attacks which leads me to believe you are either frustrated or taking it to the personal level. I am not acting arrogant, I was calling you out for your attacks. You dismiss what I said saying I was not adding anything to the conversation, ok granted I was summing up, as I even stated in the end. Then you proceeded to tell me to shut my trap if I couldn’t add anything. That good sir is why I called you arrogant. You believe yourself to be in control of the conversation and no one unless they abide by your unseen rule may interject. I proceeded to ridicule your view as you have shown little respect for what I have had to say. I am a believer in the golden rule and well you are getting the butt end of it. Now I will go back to respecting all you have to say again pending I receive similar treatment. I am sure you are a good person, I will not reciprocate the character attacks and will continue to converse with you.
I never expected to be thanked, I was simply appalled at how you responded. That is all, I hope we remain on good terms.
It’s fair to say I’ve been condescending. I’ve already apologised for it once. You inclined to apologise for insulting me yet?
It’s hard to accept that you can be familiar with the ins and outs of metaphysics and not have some level of doubt as to what you think is the case. That does in fact appear to be true; it’s just very, very unusual.
I have been stating my case over and over because you seem to have decided you can say what is and is not admissible. I object to that. Logic isn’t for you to discard unless you can give me a damn good reason. I don’t ignore life and our experiences.
You’re arrogant because you refuse to accept that any conclusion other than yours might possibly be right. And I’m responding poorly to it because you’re saying that what I believe is certainly wrong, is in fact laughably stupid.
The fact that something can’t be proven doesn’t make it comfortable or easy. Your reluctance to even admit anyone else might be right shows just how hard people will fight against the idea that they can’t be sure.
If I knew a way to be sure, do you think I wouldn’t have tried it? I have spent most of my life trying to understand myself and the world I am in. Don’t denigrate my beliefs because they come from somewhere different than yours. I have seen beauty as profound as anything in the ‘real world’ in a line of logic.
And the idea that you’re ‘willing’ to test your belief, on the condition that someone does the impossible, is absurd. You are fully convinced it will never happen. No matter how subjective reality might be, there’s no way I can make you see something you refuse to believe is possible. Whichever of us is right, you know that what you’re asking for is totally impossible.
If all you’re willing to believe in is “experiments, experiences, and actual tests of self”, is it really a surprise when your experiments turn up empiricism? You’re assuming your conclusion.
And don’t insult Taoism. There is more beauty and truth in the Tao te Ching than I know how to say.
“Do you see why I can’t prove to you. As open minded as you wish to be you have your present reservations of what reality allows and won’t no matter how hard you try let those go.”
“I have done mediating before in arguments, that is one of the main jobs.”
“I am not to be attacked as that just drags me into the argument.”
These statements are why I can’t take you as anything but arrogant. You also assume that you are above debating because you say you are. I don’t recall asking for you to referee thus I don’t hold myself to your rules. You insist on the same level of control you are accusing me of assuming. So which one of us is kettle and which is pot.
Since you want respect, I will ask this. At what point did I ask for you to referee? So if you didn’t ask for permission before chastising me for rules you decided needed to be implimented, how am I to respect you when you didn’t respect me enough to either butt out or contribute?
Free advice, Emperor. It isn’t helpful because you say it is nor do you have any more right than me to control a debate. I noted your assumptions above and my response was based on them. When you want respect, lose the high horse. I have no interest in people who feel the need to condescend and then try to put me in my place because I don’t appreciate the interference.
Respect is earned and you sure as hell haven’t earned mine yet. At least Purple is actively debating as I informally asked of him when I started my responses.
“Do you see why I can’t prove to you. As open minded as you wish to be you have your present reservations of what reality allows and won’t no matter how hard you try let those go.” This is not arrogant, it is a truth, hard as I try I cannot let go of my perceived reality as it has been drilled into me since the dawn of time.
“I have done mediating before in arguments, that is one of the main jobs.I am not to be attacked as that just drags me into the argument.” This statement was referncing the outlines of a mediator’s job. Attacking the mediator, whether invited or not, who meant no harm in the first place only has a negative impact on the message you are trying to transmit. Onlookers see that he just attacked someone who didn’t provoke him.
“These statements are why I can’t take you as anything but arrogant”.
Those statements are not of arrogance but are of respondance to your perpetration of arrogance.
You also assume that you are above debating because you say you are.
No I was saying that I was not a direct participant in this debate until you attacked me and dragged me into it.
“I don’t recall asking for you to referee thus I don’t hold myself to your rules. You insist on the same level of control you are accusing me of assuming. So which one of us is kettle and which is pot.”
“Since you want respect, I will ask this.”
Respect should always be granted and taken away based upon further investigation. Well at least that is the way I approach situations.
“When you want respect, lose the high horse. I have no interest in people who feel the need to condescend and then try to put me in my place because I don’t appreciate the interference. ”
Allow me to step in as a mediator if you please. Please re-read before you post your lies like this. The proof was there all along.
I am not the one who was riding high. You are the one who continues to dash away anything sent your way that does not coincide with what you already hold true.
Respect is earned and you sure as hell haven’t earned mine yet. At least Purple is actively debating as I informally asked of him when I started my responses.
Well, earning your respect doesn’t seem to be an easy task as I have attempted to make real contributions and you continue to reflect back on that mediator comment. Though if you continue to attack the character of the person you are arguing with, you loose credibility. Along with that, they will not want to garner your respect as along with your word it means less and less with more and more ad hominem attacks.
@Purple: Here is the deal and the crux of why I find your beliefs laughable.
“And the idea that you’re ‘willing’ to test your belief, on the condition that someone does the impossible, is absurd.”
If it is impossible, then how are you questioning reality in the slightest? If you admit it is impossible, then how it is opinion? You aren’t being consistent and that is insulting to both of our intellects.
I accept the idea that I might be wrong. In all reality, I consider our existence closer to Lovecraft than the bible. Assuming there is anything worth believing in the first place. People fall through the ground all the time. I suggest studying geology but that is just me being snide.
Here is the problem. You assume that I can never understand but you also already state that it is impossible. So how are you any more or less openminded than myself?
Now think on this because I am not a classroom ready for a stock answer. I want experiences. You have only told me of how you have starved. That doesn’t conflict with reality so try again. I’ve told you of when I had my reality messed with.
You seem to be purposely avoiding what I am asking and that is why I am avoiding an apology. You simply refuse to understand which is funny considering how much I am being told that I don’t get it.
Here is another experience of mine, one I hope you find as funny as I found it. Numerous times in my life, I have had honest to [insert higher power] premonitions. Seen the damn future.
You know what I saw? I saw me sitting on a damn raised brick area for plants while my parents fixed a flat tire. Another time, I saw me seeing some random video game in a store that was mispriced. There are a couple of others but they all, every last one of them, boil down to stupid premonitions. Visions of things in the future that had no meaning or consequence for which I had no ability to act upon and only barely realized what I was seeing when I finally got there.
The place I used to live in before college was a place that was used a senior home facility. Crazy things would happen all the time, but almost always while I was away. Things falling off shelves while being watched to my sister being trapped in a bathroom. Even Lynn was groped all over her body without me touching her. She freaked and left the room. I saw the terror in her eyes so I don’t doubt what happened to her.
My problem with you is that you tell me that I am wrong but then when I ask for proof, you tell me that I am asking the impossible when YOU are the one telling me that all is possible.
So stay consistent and actually produce what you have done to test your reality instead of trying to wow me with nothing. I can actually respect examples if you actually give them.
Finally, and this is important. I don’t believe or pretend to believe the ins and outs of metaphysics. There is no grasping all of it. Reality is mutable but constant and what we know may be a lie or we may think it a lie just to keep from screaming. However, if you want to question it, don’t expect theory to impress. Actually share what you know, not what you were taught.
“You know what I saw? I saw me sitting on a damn raised brick area for plants while my parents fixed a flat tire. Another time, I saw me seeing some random video game in a store that was mispriced. There are a couple of others but they all, every last one of them, boil down to stupid premonitions. Visions of things in the future that had no meaning or consequence for which I had no ability to act upon and only barely realized what I was seeing when I finally got there.”
So you mean like déjà vu? If you do, join the club, almost like my life has a predetermined pattern it must follow.
I can’t show you what you believe to be impossible because you won’t see it. There are several realities here. Your perception, my perception, and ‘objective reality’ (if it exists). If I’m right, your perception will not include things you hold to be impossible. Because it is your perception. If you are right, it will not include them because they are impossible. Either way, see that what you are saying can’t happen under either system. The fact that it can’t be done is evidence for neither, since both have rational explanations for it. This is perfectly consistent – I’m just trying to account for both sides, not saying both are true, which would be contradictory.
In no way do I assume that you can’t understand. I am saying that you are actively preventing yourself from understanding. I say this because your conclusion is in your premise, because you pick and choose what kinds of evidence you will accept, and because all of this makes the outcome a foregone conclusion.
I’m not really happy discussing my reality here, but I guess for the sake of argument I’ll give you a dose. I am agoraphobic. I am afraid of other people in general, and exposure to them in particular. I am largely recovered these days, but when I let my guard down I still have anxieties about anyone and everyone around me. I know that this is irrational, has no basis in experience or logic. But it has been ground into me by early experiences, and I cannot shake it, try as I might. One day maybe.
Theory is more comfortable to me because I’m familiar with it. I also take exception to the wholesale casting off of theory, because I have seen how much truth can be found in logic, and how much suffering and learning the hard way can be avoided if we stop to think about it (sadly, often after the fact). I picked up my first philosophical book when I was six. What I believe is not what I’ve been taught, or what I’ve absorbed. It is the product of my mind working as best I can make it. It might not be experience of the sort you’re talking about, but that doesn’t make it invalid.
I’m doing my “I like smart people” happy dance now. Tra la la, tra la la, frack it was a long trek back up here to find the reply button.
So, um, what about free will then?
@Purple: First of all, you finally did what I asked and I am sorry for what harm I have caused you. I wish you had told me about being agoraphobic from the beginning, then I could understand better why you resisted and why you were so determined to stick to theory.
Now, here is the secret to why I hate theory in the discussion of reality, especially when you trying to discount somebody else’s reality or make them question it.
Simply put, you aren’t expressing your own reality, merely somebody else’s hypothesis. If all reality is subjective, then why would you try to convince me of this by using somebody’s reality besides your own? Hopefully you can see the contradiction and thus it would annoy somebody as… Sure, I will go with arrogant as myself.
If it is any consolation, I hate leaving my home. I don’t believe I have it as bad as you but I honestly believe that anything can happen to me. And worse is that I believe I would have it coming at least 90% of the time. I have daymares whenever I leave the house, of all sorts of things going terribly wrong. Flashes and visions, just enough to chill my blood while I try to compose myself so I don’t get carried off to some hospital to die in a pool of my own fluids.
Perhaps part of my problem is that my paranoia has me believing that truth and reality have an absolute that doesn’t care about our presumptions. Perhaps the ground is there just to spite us and we really, truly have no control on how it all ends.
You and I are possibly two sides of the same twisted coin. You believe that reality is questionable because your reality is horrid. (assumption, apologies) I believe reality is horrid but that it is perception I must question. Either way, I understand the Why of your beliefs and thus will leave you in peace.
Here is my parting suggestion. If you want to discuss the power of the mind over reality and add examples without adding yourself, I suggest looking up medical curiosities. In particular, check out the pregnant women who weren’t pregnant, only THOUGHT they were.
@Emperor: The frustrating thing is I would wake from those annoying clear dreams wondering WTF. Then I would endure the reality weeks later and get annoyed when I realized what I was feeling. Yes, deja vu is correct but I did have the dreams beforehand so I don’t know if that adds any wrinkles to the terminology.
Seth, NOOOOOO. You would first have to establish which reality we are going to accept. From there we would have to go forth to decide if we like the deterministic view or the availability of choice. On that note, the choices presented do they branch further, is backtracking allowed. etc etc. Then again bringing up determinism defeats your question, so one alleyway that is now closed.
One can believe he is acting of free will, but is he acting of someone else’s volition. Is free will naturally inherent or is it allotted or given. Then one can also take into account the limitations currently on our present state of what we perceive as free will. For example, we cannot do anything we so please, there are laws. I would also go as far as to take into account the possibility of a higher force, similar to the law of karma.
Oh hell no, Seth. I know I am not part of your happy dance reason so I am going to avoid the headache that is having the free will conversation again…
So this is me, fleeing to go kill things in my dull existence where I have ground and video games and sex. Though with how my day has gone, I am doubting the possible reality of sex tonight.
Okay, we’ve covered free will pretty well, on to the lighting round! Does a Chinese Room know Chinese? You have three seconds to answer in the form of a pun.
No harm done, I just got a little worked up is all. My life isn’t horrid, just a bit tough sometimes. I’m a hell of a lot better off than I used to be, and even that was fairly mild compared to strong cases. And now I can go sleep, it’s about damn time.
Just to clarify – my theory is my own, and it defines my reality. I live by what I believe, or at least I try to. It means more to me than many of the things I have done and people I have met. Of course my thoughts are built on those of others, but the combination of ideas, how they come together to form a structure of thought, is mine.
That was what got under my skin more than anything else – the idea that theory is impersonal, that you can’t own it, or that it’s not really important, or that it doesn’t say anything about me.
‘Night, catch you another time.
Emperor, hope to see you around sometime too. Been fun.
And, um, what the heck, DWN? Do you honestly think I think you aren’t smart?! Whoah dude, back up a step. I know you are smart.
If a chinese room were able to speak, it would speak chinese. If it has no means of communication, silence is its language of choice.
I think I am very happy that we finally all are in accordance. As to the definition, deja vu simply goes as far as translating it to french. “Already seen” I don’t think it necessarily fudges the definition of what you experienced.
Death, if I may, I happen to find myself in a therapist role with my friends a multitude of times. Yes I am only a twenty year old but something inside me tells me I am in fact an old soul. The part that scares you the most outside, is it the variables? By that I mean, do you only feel comfortable in situations in which you can control? We may have similarities there. I don’t fear, but instead overanalyze situations. A many branched tree of plausible outcomes springs into my mind all the time. It is scary to myself to think of how my brain is firing off what can happen and possible escape routes planned. I will provide you with a link that I have found best explains what I am trying to say right now. {http: //xkcd.com /439/} and {http: //xkcd.com /337/}
Another xkcd fan, cool. I like Randall’s earlier, weirder, more abstract stuff. Red Spiders, odd landscape sketches, boys floating about in barrels.
I am partial to his math and physics puns, though an old favo(u)rite is the hobbies collection.
His Verizon calculus is the ultimate in pwnage, though I do love the juxtaposition of the heavy math with the romanticism. He’s awesome. And he really does have a room (or a partial room) full of balls to play in.
Those little red spiders are like the coolest things – remember being a kid and you could smear that tiny thing so far? Heh.
I posted one of his complaints recently that the media kept reporting on huge numbers without bothering to explain what they meant – as in millions compared to billions compared to trillions – one of my own pet peeves. Almost anyone can find something to love in xkcd.
Ps Holding people accountable is always appealing. (People and deities)
Actually, slan, I’ve had plenty of those thoughts as well. Lately I believe in God, and I believe He seriously screwed me and my wife over. No idea why, but He did.
You know what’s funny?
I have no trouble believing that all deities exist, at least in an animistic-spirit sense.
I don’t believe any of them are all-knowing and all-powerful, necessarily, but there’s no reason why they can’t all be hanging around spiritually, like patron saints or spirit guides or what-have-you.
…Maybe I’ve just been hanging out with hippies too long.
God is Obi-Wan Kenobi???????????
Well, let’s be fair. Documentary filmmakers rarely try to give you the whole truth. They will show you exactly what they want you to see. That’s probably the case with this film, and yes, I’ve seen it. It does scary the heck out of me, sorta, but no more than the radical leftists in this country. The film was humours and scary at the same time. I just have to remember that there are more sensible people in this country than either the radical right depicted in this film or the radical left that I see all the time.
Can you prove the point about Documentary filmmakers or do all you have is the example of a few bad eggs which you’re using to paint an entire body of people? Then again, we all know how every Priest is a pedophile…
Few things can even try to accomplish as much stupidity as religion results into.
So why don’t we put THEM in charge?
weren’t they?
every vegan parent I’ve known (quite a few) has/makes huge efforts to make sure that their kids are getting all the nutrients they need (dieticians, doctors, supplements when necessary). I heard the one news story about the “vegan” parents whose child died – eating nothing more than cod liver oil – which of course isn’t vegan anyway :/ also, vegans are not necessarily liberal, though I’d say the majority are.
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ~~Anne Lamott
Here is another one
“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” – Susan B. Anthony
“God is dead” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“I prefer opium” -pittypat
Don’t bogart, please.
“If them superstitious motherfu(kers want to have that kind of party,
I’m going to put my d1ck in the mashed potatoes.
Fu(king creationists.
Fu(k them.” -MC Hawking
And just to be equitable about it, I present MC Hawking’s opinion of the New Age movement:
“I aint got time to interact,
with crystal wearing freaks in need of a smack.
New age motherfu(kers? Don’t get me started,
I made more sense than them, last time I farted.”
-from “What We Need More Of Is Science,” by MC Hawking [LINK]
And to follow, “Why Won’t Jesse Helms Just Hurry Up And Die?”
It’s a musical comedy parody of gangster rap as it would be done if Stephen Hawking were doing it.
I know — that’s another MC Hawking song.
Right. So, read the lyrics, there’s a reason the fictional character of MC Hawking is angry with Jesse Helms, and anyone else who is anti-science, byatch.
Hey, you don’t have to explain it to me — I was the one who’s actually heard of the song, remember?
“Nietzsche is dead” -God
“Oh God! It’s Undead Zombie Nietzsche!” -me, pointing just behind you.
And Sweet Zombie Jesus is right behind Zombie Nietzsche!
“Nietzsche is God” -Sartre
(theoretically)
“Nietzsche was a douche bag.”-me
“Timothy Leary’s dead!
Oh no he’s outside
Looking in”-The Moody Blues
Just like (The idea of) God!
Yeah, God can be a bit of a douche bag at times too. I suppose God might have reason for this, but there’s no real hotline to get direct answers.
Honestly, I prefer the view of God as a parent. Not a nasty parent who abuses you, but a parent who does his best to make sure you’re loved, well-treated, and happy, and when sometimes there are things that the parent does that don’t make sense, you just have to believe that we will understand later on.
-
That’s my view, anyway. *hugs* It sucks, and I wish there was some way I could help you or that I could snap my fingers and make it go away. I can’t even imagine what you’re going through, but you have my empathy and prayers for you and your wife, and for your children.
Thanks. I appreciate that. I really do. And I’ve heard many comparisons to God as a parent, which works, because we all get mad at our parents too, and we often don’t understand why they do what they do until we’re older (or in this case, until we reach heaven).
I loved the movie “Bruce Almighty” because it was a beautiful example of how God doesn’t get mad at anger directed toward Him. We are human, and when bad things happen, we lash out at who we feel is responsible. I really think that anger at God for the terrible things that happen in our lives is just and good, and He doesn’t hold it against us. If He created us, He should expect it
I’ve been told a lot lately that it’s okay to be mad at God because, well, it isn’t fair. Just because God is behind it all doesn’t mean it’s fair or even okay. Taking a baby 2 hours after she’s born is far from okay, no matter who or what is ultimately behind it. I’m sure God expects it from me, and I’m hoping He’ll just let it go. I figure if even the Catholic nuns at the hospital we delivered at are saying it’s okay to be mad at God then there must be something to it. LOL
Well, you have to look at it this way:
Either whatever higher power(s) isn’t omnipotent and thus can’t stop bad things from happening, or it isn’t benevolent enough to stop them.
Sadly, the Old Testament points to both, depending on which verse you’re reading (iron chariots & genocide for examples).
[Addendum]
Personally, I’d rather believe in an entity that’s not-quite-all-powerful instead of one who’s just uncaring half the time.
Subject: “God in Movies”
My favorite portrayal of God in movies was Kevin Smith’s version in “Dogma”, played by Alannis Morisette.
Hard to believe Smith is a devout Catholic who has a sense of humor about his religion, but there you go.
My favorite is still (and will always be) Morgan Freeman. That kind of benevolent God who allows us to screw up, then gently raises us from the mess we created is my kind of God
Yeah, I’ll give him the #2 slot. George Burns goes somewhere towards the bottom though.
“Hard to believe Smith is a devout Catholic who has a sense of humor about his religion, but there you go.”
Actually, I find it explains a lot about that film
I loved the irony of having George Carlin play a cardinal or whatever he was in that movie. One of my all time favorite films.
“Tell me something about me.”–Jay
“You masturbate more than anyone on the planet.”–Rufus
“Everyone knows that. Tell me something nobody knows.”–Jay
“When you do it, you’re thinking of guys.”–Rufus
Kevin Smith was raised Catholic but said in his documentary Back to the Well that he now only goes to mass on the day before he starts production on a film and the day before it premiers.
Reminds me of a joke:
A Baptist church, Lutheran church, and a Catholic church in a small town all develop a rat problem at the same time.
The Baptists take up a collection and hire an exterminator. Naturally, this works for a few weeks, until the survivors breed enough to replace their losses, and soon they were back where they started.
The Lutherans are more frugal. They cover the inside of their church with plastic and fill the church with water, hoping to drown the rats. Rats, unfortunately, are good swimmers, so as soon as the water receded they were back in force, plus the water had damaged all the furniture. Another failure.
The catholic priest thought outside the box. He took a bible and a bucket of holy water and wandered the church all week baptizing all the rats as Catholics. Now, they only have to worry about the rats on Easter and Christmas!
Personally, I find more comfort in the idea that there is no god than there is a god who has some mystical reason for all of the atrociities in the world. I don’t know why people find it comforting to think that there is a good reason for little kids to starve to death or be massacred, or any other such horribleness.
God basically functions as a social construct to assign blame for when deeds and events go wrong. We find comfort in that there is a reason. Reason dictates predicatiblity and causation. Predictability and causation leads us to the idea that things can be explained and thus less to fear, since fearing the unknown and fearing the event counts as two different things.
If we can predict why and figure out the cause, we believe we can be spared its effect. That is the comfort, if we figure it out, we are special and thus less likely to be harmed.
Basically God is a placebo so society doesn’t go totally mad as we are still superstitious beasts struggling with the uncaring reality.
Think of it this way. The kid dies either way, so is it better to die for a reason than to die senselessly?
@DWM
“is it better to die for a reason than to die senselessly?” – In my opinion, it would only be better if you knew the reason and it was a good one. The idea that there is a reason but you’ll never know what it is doesn’t seem comforting to me in particular.
I never said that it worked on the individual level. I said it works as a societal placebo.
Bob died for a reason, rather than we don’t know why Bob died. Reason implies possible prevention, even if it is all a lie. The idea of prevention gives comfort to a mass of people, even if some of the individuals don’t take comfort.
I agree that religion functions as a societal placebo, among other things…I just don’t understand why people think it’s comforting that some higher power decided that it’s okay for babies to suffer.
I would have to say that if God was a parent he would be the one that sends his kids to boarding school with a lot of books but then never writes. Of course you can send letters back to Daddy, but there wont be any mail for the kids except for the occasional present.
This is just plain stupid.
First, we know Nietzsche made that statement but we have not heard a word from ANY god (we’ve invented thousands..)
Why does God have to answer to you?
Well why not? An all powerful god cannot take criticism?
If a deity exists, then I would have tons of questions.. because I’m mostly interested in why on earth design everything so incompetently, when you actually have the freedom to invent whatever you want…
I’d also like to know for instance why his only way to forgive our sins (his OWN incompetence) is to send his son on a suicide mission in the middle of nowhere.
I mean..That’s just retarded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QecUUnLNSiY
ok first off it wasn’t suicide. he didn’t kill himself, the roman soldiers kinda nailed him to a cross. he bled to death and rose again three days after he died. that day is actually Easter Sunday. (or said to be) and all that Christmas joy and all is when he came to earth. ya know when he was born. anyway. if ya notice Christmas is actually Christ and Mas. that is why people say Xmas. cause most people hate Christ. oops now i’m acting like my preacher and “chasing rabbits” as he would say. If you have any questions look up Dr. Vick Young. he is my preacher and the founder of my church. he would be glad to explain anything someone doesn’t understand.
-C.D.T.
first of all, nobody hates christ, some of us don’t have much need of him because he isn’t part of our faith, but we don’t hate him. big difference between not believing in and hating – i don’t believe in the tooth-fairy either, but i don’t hate her… same thing. second of all the x isn’t because people are trying to remove christ from things, it’s a writing short-cut – back from those old days when people used dip pens and couldn’t erase boo-boos, like when your grandparents or great grand parents were young. thirdly, your christmas is actually several old pagan holidays taken over by the catholic church way back in the middle ages to encourage local, conquered people into christianity. forth, believe it or not, your christ did, in essence commit suicide – it was preordained, but he didn’t have to go through with it all. so the romans put him on the cross, he knew that would be the outcome if he allowed himself to be arrested, yet he did follow his destiny. just like judas. someone was destined to betray your jesus so he could be crucified, it was his role. if judas hadn’t done it, someone else would have been put in the position to do so because there was the need for a betrayer.
(and christmas is modern pronounciation of christ’s mass). now if you want to learn more, i strongly suggest you start reading books other than the ones handed to you by your preacher. see what other educated theologians have to say on the life and times of your christ and the development of christianity before you start trying to preach on the web.
Tsk tsk – so nasty and belittling towards people who don’t think like you. When people say that my God is a sick, evil bastard, then YES, I say they hate him, not that they don’t believe in Him. Are you denying how many people have said exactly that in this thread? Burying your head in the sand like they HAVEN’T said just that over and over? Forget it.
“second of all the x isn’t because people are trying to remove christ from things, it’s a writing short-cut”
And I happen to know many people personally who use it *specifically* because they resent typing “Christ”, which is a title and not a name. Or did you skip that in your advance theology courses?
Like the one that taught you Jesus committed in essence suicide – boy that’s brilliant. Forget it, anyone with THAT shallow an understanding isn’t worth bothering with. Hasta la vista.
…And that wasn’t my line: it was written on the wall where Nietzsche wrote the statement, underneath it.
And how do you know Nietzsche definitely said it? Were you there?
Of course I was not there…
I can never be completely sure but its pretty much an accepted fact that N wrote this:
“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”
And again. We have NO way of knowing if God has said, written or thought
“N is dead”
But it makes for a funny t-shirt, to have those two on opposite sides.
Accepted fact… From an old book? Word of mouth? From a collection of letters or thoughts or dictations?
Picky about the sources we trust, aren’t we?
I wasn’t contesting the fact that Nietzsche said it. I was pointing out that 1984 will trust one book but not another…
“I believe in religiousness, but not religion” – Sahaj Ticotin
Win.
Win!
I found denigrating and offensive the caption beneath the photograph of Becky Fischer. I am sick and tired of having to be tolerant and kind to liberal atheist humanists, while they are free to denigrate any facet of this nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage. While I am a devout Roman Catholic, a little simple inverstigation clearly shows that the good Lord is using Ms. Fischer as His servant. It’s obvious that liberal atheist humanists simply can’t tolerate holy people.
Obvious troll is obvious.
It’s obvious that holy people simply can’t tolerate liberal atheist humanists, hence the picture. ^
I could agree with holier-than-thou people, or wholly (obnoxious, arrogant, etc – take your pick) people… but not holy people. Holy people are very rare and very wonderful. But I don’t think any of the real ones ever called themselves that, and they shouldn’t be tarred with the same brush.
I’m often a jack@55, I’ll admit. But I try to be aware of that and compensate, rather than defining my jack@55dom as holiness. Or claiming that the consequences (people being pissed off at me) prove I’m a poor little martyr.
Since when have any of you Invisible-Sky-Friend-Believers been TOLERANT of Atheists? WHEN?
I find YOU denigrating and offensive.
I am tolerant, one of my good friends happens to be an atheist, we have many great debates.
+1 internet to Emperor.
Aww thanks, now I have 18,001 Internets.
“when have any of you… been TOLERANT…?”
IMO, any time you accuse an entire group – without no exceptions – of being intolerant / prejudiced / etc, you need to recalibrate your Irony Meter. Or possibly take it in to get it fixed.
Argh, fail. That should have been “without any” or “with no.”
You’re funny.
“I am sick and tired of having to be tolerant and kind to liberal atheist humanists, while they are free to denigrate any facet of this nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage.”
Matthew 18:21-22
21Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, “Lord, how many times shall I forgive my brother when he sins against me? Up to seven times?”
22Jesus answered, “I tell you, not seven times, but seventy-seven times.
“after that though, he’s fair game.”
Using her hardly. You can’t really be in agreeance with her. Please tell me you are joking.
This nation’s Judeo-Christian heritage?
-Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11.
-Almost anything written by founder Thomas Jefferson.
-The fact that Christmas wasn’t even widely celebrated in the US until the 1800s.
I know I’m not supposed to feed the trolls, but this one’s posting style looks a lot like one of the trolls from FSTDT.
It’s SO impressive that you spend time there at FSTDT berating, belittling, and mocking Christians and their beliefs. Wow, score one for YOU. Not.
So many of the quotes there are just regular Christian theology, not wacko fundamentalism of the Becky Fischer type or of the charismaniacal type or the Phelps type. But you guys there can’t tell the difference.
To the person who asked if it was really “uncool” to be Christian, go to FSTDT and tell me. Then try “Fundie Watch” (where fundies tremble in terror!) and tell me. Those are very popular and heavily trafficked sites, so, uh yeah – yes, the “cool” kids certainly do belittle people of faith. Once in a while they put up other religions than Christianity (I submitted a wacky Islamic quote once) but that they troll the internet finding quotes to mock the entire realm of faith ought to tell you something about how faith is viewed by the many. Many aren’t capable of making distinctions between normal churchgoers or the Phelps crew – it’s all the same to them, which is why they come up with sh** like the Flying Spaghetti Monster to mock us with. Whether we’re in the majority or not we are a loathed minority. It’s an accepted bigotry, one of the few (like fat-hatred) that are accepted in “polite” leftist society or “erudite” society. Read Sci-fi? You ought to be aware of the prejudice already then.
Actually, FSTDT belittles fundies of ALL faiths, not just Christians. They’ve even posted quotes from militant atheists.
The people who think the site exists to belittle Christians haven’t been paying attention… especially since some of FSTDT’s most notable members are Christian themselves.
FSTDT is, however, not a very well-known site. It’s heavily-trafficked, but only by a small number of people. Most people I meet have never heard of it. And I’ve honestly never been to Fundie Watch; I’ve only heard of it once before you mentioned it.
For the record, though, I don’t normally belittle people there. I read the quotes and post rational, researched retorts using logic and fact-checking. It’s an exercise in debate for me.
*The Flying Spaghetti Monster was created to show the flaws in teaching Creationism in science class. For what it’s worth, the people who first used it were right about that much.
*You can’t be a minority if you’re the majority.
*Most people ARE capable of telling the difference between fundie-types and normal Christians. For one thing, the non-fundies don’t constantly insult people and threaten them with eternal torture. Fundies do… often while smiling at the idea of someone else suffering forever.
Oh, and “so many of the quotes there are regular Christian theology”? Well, maybe. But that doesn’t make it any less fundie when the quotes come from people using that theology to, say, make government laws, deny scientific facts, and/or revise history. When there’s a normal, reasonable quote on that site, most of our people simply say “Meh, not fundie” and move on. It’s the quotes that justify killing and discrimination, that claim to prove observable reality wrong, that deny basic history and fact that get mocked.
And if you paid attention to sites like Rapture Ready, you’d see where the real fundie quotes come from.
FSTDT members, for the most part, actually like normal Christians and people of other faiths. We even have calm, rational debates and discussions with them on the forums. We’re even friendly to them, as long as the sentiment is returned.
Look at her arms.. DAYUM..
She needs to stop worrying about Jesus camp and start worrying about fat camp..
Did you know there is a weight limit to the Rapture? It’s true, if you are too fat, God’s gonna leave you behind. Not that he couldn’t carry you, what with the omnipotence and all, but it’s just rude to expect him to carry that much. Luckily, God has a diet plan, and He has authorized me to sell it to you for just three easy payments of $29.95.
They’re in the form of vouchers, though.
I love you. xD
This has to be the funniest thing I’ve read today, thank you.
*Paypals Seth the first easy payment*
Gee. You must be from here in Colorado Springs with its wholesome Focus on the Family. Yes. They believe thou shall love thy neighbor (as long as thy neighbor has the same religious opinions as them). Apparently that’s the same believe even here!
Religion: The one word that has killed more humans and other creatures than we will ever have an actual headcount for.
Focus on the Family: aren’t the group whose founder suggested that the best way to avoid having your son grow up gay was to have him shower with his father, so he could see how big Dad’s whatchamacallit is?
That would be the same one, yep.
Ignoring all the arguments that are flying around about relgions…
I went to a Catholic high school, and junior year, my class watched that movie. I cried, and I’m pretty sure that movie is why I’m seriously entertaining the idea of becoming a Buddhist.
The liberal Christian has just about had enough of this crap.
First of all, to the Christians, extreme bible thumpers who judge everyone for not being exactly like them and other fringe people are giving the entire religion a bad name. Not to mention the crap that stupid and evil people have done in the past in Jesus’ name. Sadly, many non-Christians believe the religion is all about oppression due to the actions of people while totally ignoring the “love thy neighbor” central theme. We have to learn to fix our image to save a perfectly good religion from dying out. I wonder if it’s too late.
To those who enjoy bashing on religion, God, and especially Christians: Clearly you don’t get it. Why is it okay for you to say your rights have been infringed upon if someone says the name “Jesus,” but it’s okay for you to take a massive crap on our entire religion? You’re not a believer. Good for you. I’m excited. We’ll throw you a f*cking party. Don’t b!tch about us who believe. That’s all I ask. I’ll respect your decision to not believe if you’ll respect my decision to believe. And if you insist on making fun of God, Jesus, and Christianity (and yes, I don’t mind cracking jokes about it too, but there’s a difference between being funny and just being mean), then don’t expect me to treat what you have to say with any respect. If you want to rip into Christianity, then expect Christians to rip into you because for most Christians that hits pretty close to home. In my recent time of hardship, my faith is one of the few things that has kept me going despite my constant questioning of said faith. And if you think I’m a nutjob for that, then that’s great for you. F*ck off. Thanks, glad I got that off my chest. Back to the funny!
Eric, those of us on the other side of the fence feel the same way about the asshats who mock faith as you do about fundies who rant about hellfire. We care a whole lot more about being a decent person than we do about what someone believes, and we’re much more fond of intelligent, reasonable christians than the idiots over here. It’s just so damn hard to get them to quiet down.
If faith’s what’s for you, I wish you all the best with it, and hope it helps you through the rough parts.
I’m not going to rip into anything, because I believe what you’ve said is the way it should be: live and let live. I will never openly mock someone for merely stating they are religious. I grew up around religious people, and for all the faults that I personally find with Christianity (Baptist, in particular), I see the good that also can be created with faith. The choice to believe and the choice to not believe are both choices that should be respected. Now, that said.. I’d like to point out that this particular LOL is in reference to the woman in the picture–not Christianity in general.
My grandparents ran a small Christian summer camp for many years; I know the simple fun that can be had from attending those. My grandparents were quiet, understanding folks when teaching their Bible class. Were they straightforward with their beliefs? Yes; but they were also respectful. They would never force you to do or say anything, nor condemn you if you ultimately rejected their teaching. They would just smile, give you a hug, and tell you that they’d pray for you. I personally find that a nice, welcoming gesture. It’s a statement that they are stable enough in their faith that praying will give an extra little push, to help you understand it better. Further up, whoever said they were offended by it.. you’re looking at it in the wrong context, in my opinion.
The reason I give that little life story? To point out that there are normal, kind Christian camps for children; yet that isn’t all there is. I know Jesus Camp, and I know that documentary is more accurate than most want to believe. I went to another camp that had a more zealous feel to it, and it really frightened me. I don’t care who you are, or what religion you follow: when you get kids to dress up in camo and war paint, then sing religious songs about your faith.. you have issues, and are permeating those children with militaristic values about your religion–and that’s WRONG. It’s sick, frankly. After growing up with such kind, gentle Christians who never pushed themselves nor their faith on anyone who rejected it, it outright sickens me that this lady runs her “camp” in such a fashion.
That is why I laughed at this LOL. Because it’s geared towards outright extremists, like the woman pictured; not towards regular Christians who follow what Jesus himself preached: “Love your neighbor as you love yourself.”
I went to a Presbyterian camp when I was a kid, and there was more debauchery going on there than at any given college spring break to Cancun trip. This kind of thing, though, this isn’t cool. You’re right. And I hate that this is the kind of thing that people think about now when they hear “Christians.” Christianity needs better PR.
I’ve not weighed in on this one because 1) agnostic here and 2) I’ve some very dear friends who are 1) liberal Christians, 2) moderately conservative Christians and 3) Orthodox Jews. I’ve no fondness for intolerant folk in any of the religious or anti-religious camps. To the fire-breathers of the world, can you all just have a beer or soda and chill a bit?
Well, I think I…
wait, did you say beer?
i think the stuff that christians and all religionists believe are stupid fairy tales, but thats fine. if only you kept it to yourself. its when your stupid religion runs an entire political party into the ground (one that i used to belong to) and when your stupid religion tries forcing creationism into science class, when your stupid religion tries to ban stem cell research, when your stupid religion is against civil rights for gays, when your stupid religion insists on rewriting the history books by claiming this is a christian nation founded for christians, when your stupid religion wants to post the 10 commandments in courthouses pretending not to notice that 8 of the 10 commandments have nothing to do with any existing laws, when your stupid religion acts like school prayer (christian prayer only of course) will cure society of its ills – ask all the kids raped by catholic christians how that worked out for them – your stupid religion needs a bashing.
christianity has been getting away with so much sh1t for centuries AND still is – you think any secular institution would still exist if it did what the catholic church has done recently? i just find it totally hilarious what a bunch of whiny little babies you godbotherers are when someone pushes you a little and you scrape your knee.
Take back the Republican party, for the small Fed, states rights part of the party, please? I swear I wouldn’t know how to vote if you conservatives did that. I’m a pragmatic Anarchist, I vote for the party that I think is going to get us to real Anarchy the fastest. If the Republican party focused on ‘states first, Fed second’ it would really put me in a tizzy. I’m an Anarcho-Syndicalist at heart, not a liberal, but I have to put the ‘social’ part of my philosophy over the Anarchist part and vote Democrat as long as the Republicans keep catering to the ‘social control’ parts of their party. When Barack beat Hilary in the primaries, it was almost a toss up between him and McCain with me for a while, until McCain demonstrated he was solidly Neo-Con. Which is an offshoot of liberalism, did you know? How did those liberal freaks get control of the Republican party? I blame Nixon.
it wasn’t nixon that brought in the neo-cons to the republican party – it was reagan who brought in their parent cult, the moral majority
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority}, when falwell gave up leadership, pat robertson absorbed it into his political group the xian coalitition. there is also close ties with the new right (this is where reagan comes in)
The New Right got a policy approach and electoral apparatus that brought Ronald Reagan into the White House in the 1980 presidential election. The American New Right is distinct from and opposed to the more moderate tradition of the so-called Rockefeller Republicans. The New Right also differs from the Old Right on issues concerning foreign policy with the New Right being opposed to the non-interventionism of the Old Right. Though mostly ignored by scholars until the late 1980s, the formation of the New Right is now one of the fastest-growing areas of historical research. (snagged from wiki)
one last tidbit for thought: Reagan sought the input from the Moral Majority leadership during his campaign and appointed the Rev. Robert Billings, the Moral Majority’s first executive director, to be a religious advisor to the campaign. Later, Reagan appointed Billings to a position the Department of Education. This appointment was particularly significant for the Moral Majority, which had lobbied on education policy issues, especially those regarding private schools.
1. You’re being an a$$hat.
2. You’re blaming an entire religion for stuff that certain other a$$hats have done.
3. No need to insult all Christians. What’s your problem?
“Why is it okay for you to say your rights have been infringed upon if someone says the name “Jesus,” but it’s okay for you to take a massive crap on our entire religion?”
Er, that’s completely backwards. Why is it okay for Christians to say their rights have been infringed upon if atheists put “there probably isn’t any god” on the side of a bus? Why is it okay for Christians to say that their rights have been infringed upon when the rest of us point out that the USA is not a Christian nation?
Atheists aren’t the ones spewing the PC nonsense. We’re simply insisting that we have the right to our beliefs as well. When Christians learn to respect that, we’ll start respecting them. Frankly, Christians are FAR behind atheists when it comes to toleration. No contest.
I haven’t seen too much of that toleration here. And it’s not completely backwards. I’m scared to even say that I’m a Christian anymore without someone giving me a look or rolling their eyes at me. Yes, Christianity has taken a number of hits due to a number of idiots who ruined the religion. But we’re not all like the lady in the picture. Hell, I’d say most of us aren’t. And there are crazy atheists just like there are crazy Christians. Or crazy any-given-religion.
I respect your right to atheism. Now respect my right to be a Christian.
i cant believe im posting on a discussion like this agin after that debaucle on facebook…
before i begin, i must say two things;
1) i am a bible believing christian who goes by God’s word as it is shown (dont flame me on this point, its not the issue im discussing)
2)im going to be talking about the historical nature of the Bible
to start, many people like to state that there is no unbiased report of the life of the man known as Jesus. as far as i have researched, this is true but is actually better for my point because the account are from a prominant jewish historian who of course really didnt like Jesus in the first place.
the reason this account is considered pretty reliable is because his other records of history are also backed up by other historians, it was his trade so he was duty bound to record correctly. and last and not least, HE WROTE ABOUT CHRISTS MIRACLES! the point being that he backed up the biblical account accurately because it happened.
the only other bit of history i would like to touch would be thebiblical city of Ninevah that Jonah visited. for years this city was used as evidence against the reliability of the Bible because there had never been a bit of evidence for its existence outside of the Bible until, lo and behold, much like the city of Troy, it WAS FOUND IN THE PRECISE LOCATION MENTIONED IN THE BIBLE! who was eating crow then, i wonder? the existence of this singular city found only in the Bible is a heck of a lot more than some religions have going for them.
these two examples in no way give definitive proof of biblical history but its a start…faith, anyone?
as a disclaimer, i have definitely left out a good portion of supplementary information here, but the relavent information is correct, if paraphrased
if you’d like to debate on this, do it with someone else, im just here to give a bit of information on an underinformed (i think i just made up a word…) subject. if you want more information, look it up yourself, may i suggest Lee Strobel to begin with?
prayin’ for all of ya,
jc
i assume youre referring to josephus, who was born after jesus died and whose words regarding jesus are considered at minimum altered by later christian scribes but most likely are a forgery. either way, he wasnt alive when jesus was so was just passing on what he had heard decades after the supposed events.
also, you do know at that time in history of the greco-roman culture LOTS of people were doing miracles which were recorded by historians of the era. the roman emperors did miracles for example. anybody that was somebody had miracles attributed to them. what, you dont believe those accounts? why not?
“prayin’ for all of ya”
Oh I’m way past the point of your prayers helping me, but if you feel better, go ahead and pray!
In addition to what Ron said, I’d like to add that there are many historical inaccuracies in the bible as well. For instance, the lack of evidence (and impossibility) of a global flood, the lack of Roman or any contemporary records about Jesus during his supposed lifetime, and the lack of remains of places such as Sodom and Gomorrah or the Tower of Babel.
And for the record, including places that currently exist or recently existed does not automatically give something validity as a historical source. If it did, then that would make the “I Am Legend” movie a documentary because it takes place in New York.
and before i leave, on the caption, if you want to know the words of God, pick up a bible. people can preach falsly, the Bible didn’t
I used to be a christian, then I read the bible and was disgusted so I started questioning my beliefs and I started checking out other religions, now I’m an agnostic.
I used to be a christian, then I read the bible
How on Earth did you manage to be a Christian before that?
It was basically just a family thing.
My parents made everyone go to church when we were young and they even helped teach sunday school so I always identified myslef as a christian and only read happy snippets of the new testament and the first part of genesis.
I tend to concentrate on Jesus’ word more than anything. Get out of the gospels, and I start to have doubts about what I’m reading. Jesus was a great guy, and even if you think the religion is pure evil, I’d be shocked to hear that anyone has a problem with his central theme of loving one another.
Actually I love Jesus and his teachings.
That guy was awesome and one of the best philosophers of his time.
The only parts of the bible I dislike or the ones that contradict “Love your Neighbor” and start condemning everyone that doesn’t follow a specific box set of rules.
Because apparently God doesn’t have Neighbors.
But I think the Christians that are following the religion because they agree with Jesus’ teachings, well I won’t argue with them unless they try to convert me. Because that would make me an asshole.
I can respect that, yo.
why doesnt a picture about a crazy left wing group ever make it to the main page. how about gays dressed ridiculously tearing things down after prop 8 passed. or nut job code pink demonstrations. liberal claptrap
Because most of the people who visit this site think you guys are nuts.
(Remember, the definition of “most” is 50% + 1)
Why yes, Portlandmark, yes, we are nuts. Nuts and fifteen degrees of center. That’s why we caption our cats and dogs, cuz our inner voices encourage us to. And then we find other things that make no sense to make even less sense of. Very Douglas Adams of us!
It’s what makes life so interesting though, don’t ya think?
Ask and ye shall receive. [link]
[link]
And once more with feeling. [link]
Ok.. pardon a few of my spelling mistakes; I was getting quite worked up :p
the guy was talking about ninevah being the bible, not troy. but ninevah appears in other non-biblical texts as well so that guy didnt have any idea what he was talking about being something used to disprove the bible. it was known to be an important city in the assyrian empire, just nobody knew where it was until they found it in the mid 19th C.
and it was jonah that lived in the belly of a whale. (good one right?) job was the dude whose family was killed, his flocks and herds wiped out, his wealth and health taken so that god could win a bet with satan. but dont worry theres a happy ending – he got a whole new family and lots more animals than he had before his experience as gods plaything! south park had a great take on it – http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/104224
this a cat pictures forum. who cares about spelling?
sorry jacob, you must be lost, you are here:
) but lolspeak isn’t so ignored
{http://punditkitchen.com/2009/05/24/political-pictures-becky-fisher-word-christ/}
if you want the lolcat forum you need to be:
{http://icanhascheezburger.com/}
spelling makes a difference here (and boy am i thankful for those who overlook my blunders
Please stay and write more.
And whoever invited you here, ah, they get major props for that. Seriously, are you a regular? A lurker? We can only get stronger from having more, and more intelligent, voices. Thanks.
You mean more pretentious and intolerant voices, don’t you? I respect atheists beliefs, but when they ridicule mine, then that respect vanishes and changes to a nice fat “fu(k off.”
“I respect atheists beliefs, but when they ridicule mine, then that respect vanishes and changes to a nice fat “fu(k off.”
Eric, I’ve read about 500 responses to this thread, a preponderence of them being yours. I’ve tried to be respectful to your obvious personal grief and thereby forgiving of your obnoxious pontifications … but frankly that comment has perfectly summed up your thick headed foolishness.
Respect is a two way street. Atheists are a bit sick of being ridiculed too. In fact, over the centuries we’ve been burned, drowned, shot, harassed, hung, exiled, ostracised, gaoled and made to dress up like poulty. But if WE issue a nice fat fu(k off, we’re being intolerant and accused of poking those poor christians with pointy fingers.
Can’t have it both ways, bud. Just face the fact that aethiests don’t GET faith, and the faithful don’t GET aethism. Slinging sh*t doesn’t change anyone’s mind.
I’ll respect your right to believe what you want, but you in return you must respect my right to question it. The onus is on the believers to prove their hypotheses, not on non believers to disprove it.
The onus falls on no one. Both sides are only responsible to be aware of the other sides ideas, points and overall intentions. Nothing more, Christians don’t have to prove the existence of God to atheists. Anyone who is doing so is imposing their beliefs on another, which I can’t stand. Atheists don’t have to disprove the existence of God, let the religions be and have their faith. Taking something like religion from a person is a bad thing to do. Almost along par with taking their child from them. It is something they have believed for a long time, now you tell them they have wasted there time, well you are asking for an angry response. I say be aware and live and let live.
The only time I see that questioning one another’s beliefs is acceptable is if doing so is agreed on by both parties beforehand. And seriously, do you expect me to sit here and take it while you tell me how ridiculous my beliefs are? I know they’re not logical and cannot be proven. I don’t give a crap either.
I respect everyone’s right to practice whatever religion they want, including no religion at all. I have no problem with that. What’s wrong with expecting the same back? Both sides complain that the other is intolerant. The truth is there are intolerant people on both sides, and there are tolerant people on both sides. I’m on the tolerant side until someone gets nasty with me. Then I get nasty back. Not particularly “Christian” of me, but nobody’s perfect.
And I’m not thick-headed, ya jerk.
He is my friend from school.
Little question.
So if you die and you go to heaven,
how do you think you can continue on living and how can you remember things, like memories, people you knew, ect.
Since your brain will be rotting at earth. =)
Yeah, watch what you say. I told someone his daughter was worm food and I got lambasted. Truth hurts, I guess.
Well, I wasn’t there so I wouldn’t know the details but I presume having a dead daughter would be what hurt him most.
I just realised you were talking about Eric. No wonder you were lambasted. Is it so hard for you to let someone believe in that situation?
Yeah, dopes, it’s ok to say Anniee has a dead daughter that’s wormfood and she’s gonna burn in hell – it’s NOT ok to say it about Eric.
There goes the last shred of hope that you could be someone to talk to, AC. You’re just as much an ass as the majority here.
Who said that, Anniee? I don’t recall that particular conversation. The majority of the people here probably don’t even believe in hell, so I find it hard to imagine that anyone would say that.
-
And for the record, I’m sorry you lost your daughter and would never, in a million years, say anything so crass to you.
Anniee, I wasn’t even aware you had a dead daughter. I don’t ever recall you mentioning it, honestly. And I’m sorry about her.
ICDK would have been wrong to call them wormfood were it anyone’s child. I thought I didn’t have the full picture until I scrolled up and realised that the full conversation was on this page: that’s why I mentioned Eric.
Anniee, I didn’t know you had lost a daughter. My sincerest condolences. I had no idea.
It seems many missed my point. I explained what I wrote for those who decided to jump on the bandwagon without thinking about it.
Ok, fair enough you were talking about a chemical process without intent to upset anybody… But you have to admit that calling someone’s loved one “wormfood” is thoughtless, tactless and, as Eddie said, crass.
I can admit when I’m wrong. My apologies, STL.
Thanks for the apology. I just saw it after I called you tactless up above. I will admit to being very sensitive and irrational when it comes to this subject, so if I came off as an ass myself, I also apologize. I don’t mind talking about what happened with my daughter, but I don’t even pretend that I keep my emotions under control when I do. LOL
No, you’re not an ass at all. I was caught up in the topic and allowed myself to be an ass. It’s all me. I’d have gotten pissed off at me, too.
The topic does tend to get people fired up, that’s for sure.
So you’ve NEVER thought that MAYBE there was something more?
Never KNEW you knew someone you’d never met before?
Never had “too weird to be co-inky-dink” occasions?
Sad.
Just because Tammy Faye ain’t right doesn’t mean there’s NOTHING.
Wait- are you over 13?
Don’t assume all Atheists are materialists. The depdence of mind on brain is a long ways from proven fact, and there are as many holes in materialism as there are in any other metaphysics. Seen any noumena lately? Fancy describing them to me?
Not everyone is a nihilist asshat who will aggressively mock people for a genuine faith that helps them live a good life. Learn to live and let live, and quit ruining Atheism’s good name.
Well said. (I assume my other comment has been eaten)
I just sent this to about 20 people. Great ideas!
party pooper here
– troy isn’t in the bible, it was found following the illiad and the odessy by homer — way predates the bible 
following the bible eden has yet to be found, nor has the ark of the covenent or even noah’s ark for htat matter…..hmmmm greek poet gives better description of/to a locale that the word of ????
I thought Eden was in Mesopotamia. (modern day Iraq) And Noah’s Ark wasn’t on Ararat but it was on the one next to it. (?) So I heard.
the best theory i’ve heard on eden is that it was between the tirgress and the euphrates, but would be in part of the drainfield that is now submerged under the red sea (not sure if that is the right one – can’t remember my geography so good tonight)
for noah’s ark, there are several possible locations, including a peak in saudi arabia, and one in turkey – this one has been getting a lot of playtime lately – there is an outcropping of rock from under a retreating glacier that some folk are convienced is the ark. whether or not it is is im[ossible to find out because turkey has banned all travel up that particular peak….
and the ark of the covenent is supposed to be in the posseions of an obscure jewish sect in ethiopia – this one almost seems plausible to me, but htey won’t let anyone inside their synagoge to check it out
pleae ignore the typos’ i’ve been up about 20 hrs and my fingers are in revolt
Oh I saw that TV programme! The Ethiopian one… Very interesting but seriously… does it matter all that much to us today?
And your typos aren’t all that bad.
thank you for that
the ethiopian one was facinating — and in a way it does matter both to those who want proof that the bible is the infallible word of god (!?!?!?!) and to biblical scholars and archeologists. finding it would give another piece of tangible insight into the history of jews. clearer understanding of the past can have the effect of clearer understanding of today, which leads to less misunderstanding tomorrow….
or “if you don’t know where you came from, how will you know where you are going?”
and a bit of humor about the bible and it’s inerrancy:
A new monk arrived at the monastery. He was assigned to help the other monks in copying the old texts by hand. He noticed, however, that they were copying copies, not the original books. The new monk went to the head monk to ask him about this. He pointed out that if there were an error in the first copy, that error would be continued in all of the other copies.
The head monk said, ‘We have been copying from the copies for centuries, but you make a good point, my son.’ The head monk went down into the cellar with one of the copies to check it against the original.
Hours later, nobody had seen him, so one of the monks went downstairs to look for him. He heard a sobbing coming from the back of the cellar and found the old monk leaning over one of the original books, crying.
He asked what was wrong.
‘The word is ‘celebrate,’ not ‘celibate’!’ sobbed the head monk.
Too lazy to type individual facts, so there’s an article about the story of “Noah’s Ark” and how it could not have happened for various reasons.
http:// stupiddinosaurlies.org /noahs-ark-and-the-ararat-misadventure /
Remove the spaces.
Christianity:
The belief that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever in a land of clouds if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman made out a rib and some clay was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magic tree… yeah… it makes perfect sense >.>
Besides, grown men with imaginary friends are just silly.
“When I was a lad, I used to have an imaginary friend. And I used to think I could talk to him, and he could hear me, and he could grant me wishes and such… then I grew up and I stopped going to church.”
That’s actually pretty funny.
I for one never said that Christianity was rational in the slightest. That’s one of the things I like about it. LOL
I was about to find/post the poster!
Man, when you say it, it sounds as weird as the Scientologists!
The positive thing about christianity is that it isn’t Islam.
Jesus looks to have been by most standards a good person whereas mohammed was warlord, a pedo (he had sex with a nine year old girl) and a child-killer (he personally beheaded over 900 ppl some of them children)*
*none of this is disputed by any muslim, just ask…
Of course if you read the old testament of the bible you can see that the “God” in it is one of the most violent beings around, and it also sexist, racist, homophobic, bloodlusting and pro-slavery.
Yet christians claim this idea is also perfect?
I would have to say that every religion has it’s violent role-models.
Go is pretty much a Giant Hitler in the sky. If you don’t live up to his expectations of what a ‘good person’ should be, he burns you for all eternity…
Eh, I don’t believe that. I’m one of those Christians who picks and chooses what he believes out of the Bible and most of the old testament is pretty much crap to me. Hell, a lot of the new testament is crap to me too. I’m more focused on what Jesus said, which translates loosely to “peace, love, and rock ‘n roll.”
Wow Eric, you seem Like an awesome person.
I don’t get to see too many Jesus-oriented(not Bible-oriented)christians, but it’s wonderful to hear they’re still around.
I consider myself a Jesus oriented Pagan. I like the Sermon on the Mount, but the rest of the bible is… well, it’s enough to say it mostly does nothing for me.
You just haven’t read the good parts. I suggest the Song of Solomon
Yes indeedy. Sometimes it’s good to be the king.
And let’s not forget the part where David was perving to the point he had someone killed so he could have her. Who says the Bible is all about gloom and doom?
You know he was whacking it on that balcony watching Bathsheeba bathe. The dirty, dirty king.
It’s good to be the king.
Like I said above, you don’t have to be Christian to like Jesus. Even if you don’t believe in the resurrection, or anything else in the bible, then you should be able to get behind his basic message. I mean, who goes around saying “Eh, that Jesus guy was all about loving people. That’s just sick.” LOL
I think Jesus-oriented Christians are making a comeback as more and more people become fed up with organized church. Despite growing up in a very Presbyterian family, I don’t consider myself part of any denomination anymore.
Just curious why you’d latch on to christianity if you don’t believe in most of its texts.
If both the old and the new teatments are crap to you, WHY then, are you a christian? The “golden rule” isn’t particular to the judeao/christrian mob. And you can’t honestly say that you know what christ said, if it’s word of mouth not recorded until many decades after he supposedly said it. (I mean, look at today’s media.. even with instantaneous recording, they STILL don’t get it right..)
Because I do believe in Jesus Christ, and I do believe in God. Beyond that, I don’t really have to answer to you. You’ve already annoyed me once.
Ah, so kind of like Thomas Jefferson, then?
Saying dumb stuff like that is probably why people hate you.
Look, I can respect your opinions. I’m not going to try and force you to be Christian. But it would due you well not to be so moronic in your statements.
The positive thing about rape is that is isn’t murder. Look at the argument you presented.
At least 50% of the parties involved in rape are enjoying themselves, what’s so wrong with that?
What so wrong with that, you can’t gauge how much percent of the murder victims were enjoying themselves.
Exactly, statistically, it’s the most enjoyable of violent crimes. And that’s just rape, in gang rape the can be even more! 50-99% of the people involved enjoy themselves. Personally, I think rape is a wonderful, wonderful thing.
It is most enjoyable as it doesn’t involve loss of property, life or include the cutting and dismemberment of stabbings.
Ah yes, but on the hindsight of this insight, look how many ‘slaves’ were sent out to be raped or murdered in the bible so that the biblical figure and/or his family wouldn’t be. All because God told them to. Or the fact slavery was still condoned even after his people were freed from slavery. And most wives were considered of marrying age anywhere from 10 – 14, and in some cases, used as bargain or payment. Not exactly a ray of innocence there. Hell, there isn’t a single religion out there that is all wine and roses; all of them have faults, and all of them have good points.
And all the religions with really deep roots have a flood where some great man and his family survived on a ‘great big boat’ of some kind — at least we know THAT really happened.
Whether or not you respect something is your business, but to treat others with dignity is a basic courtesy. That includes not making unfunny and offensive jabs at their faiths.
You respect mine and I’ll respect yours indeed. Why not start the cycle yourself? I guarantee you there are a lot of smart, nice folks who have “invisible friends” who you will enjoy debating with if you treat them right. As a tolerant atheist myself, I’ve met plenty, and it has been good times.
afaik jesus never raped or murdered anyone, whereas mohammed did both regularly
I’m not religious btw :p
To Yuki_N, I see your point.
If you took it a step further and founded a religion based on rape you could extend that enjoyment to millions if not billions of people.
Including all children as outcomes.
I quite plan to. And you two shall be my saints! Let us roam the lands, spreading our message, seed, and the legs of millions!
Eh, plenty of people have been there done that. And they’re often quite modern about the results of child rape – reduce, reuse, recycle.
(If there is a Hell, I hope they’re in its basement.)
Bleh. I think I’ll stick to subjectivity and objectivity like any true skeptic kk thx.
Prove to me, objectively, that God exists, and I shall acknowledge it.
But I’ll still choose not to believe in God. My subjective experience is my choice
.
Its hard to prove such an idea true.
Try the default: You can’t prove he doesn’t.
Still, just because you can’t prove or disprove him doesn’t do anything to His existence, it then falls upon faith to take over.
Hence the reason it’s the default Answer I get from my christian friends
You are correct. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. However, it is not up the non-believers to prove a negative unless it is some sort of valid proof by exhaustion. With God, he could be anywhere and therefore proof by exhaustion is not valid.
e.g. I hold to you two empty boxes. For me to prove that there is not a ball in either box, I’d have to open them both to find the proof or disproof. But with God, or the orbiting teapot metaphor, proof by exhaustion is nearly impossible since you’d have to check everything, everywhere, SIMULTANEOUSLY – the teapot may have a massive orbit radius the size of another galaxy, or the same as the moon, but to say it doesn’t exist requires unattainable proof by exhaustion.
What does this all mean?
It means it is up to the believers to prove. Not the non-believers. And only objective evidence will do if it is to be considered in the objective world. But remember, your subjective experience is your choice.
If anyone is interested, I study Psychology and this is how I come to know this. I study magic (David Blaine, Derren Brown and many others), I know how circular logic works, I know how to hypnotise, I know some NLP, I know how emotion works and I can even do a little mind reading (not REAL mind reading remember, just an illusion of it) but that takes a lot of work on my part. This is why I emphasis the importance of evidence before any irrational brain when considering the objective world.
While what you are saying is valid, it kind of misses the point. Nearly all religous belief isn’t founded in, or based on, rational analysis. Most intelligent theists choose to believe in god because they see it as having a positive impact on their lives, not because book x says so or because they think they have a ‘proof’.
In order to present the existence of god as objective fact, proof would be necessary. But there are many reasonable foundations for personal opinion beside objective fact.
Like I said, a persons subjective experience is their choice ^-^ it’s just that when we talk about it objectively, it’s a different matter.
I choose a lot of subjective beliefs (useful ones, I’ll explain in a minute) that are not religious. Objectively speaking, I am allowed to believe in whatever I want (ironic, eh?).
I think there is a marked difference between these two questions:
What do you believe in?
..which could be anything, rational or not. And based on whatever emotion.
And this..
What do you WANT to believe in?
..which is down to your inner wisdom.
I choose not to get invovled with religion simply because it’s too much about good and evil. Here’s what I believe in: we are all born happy, there is nothing wrong with us and the only reason why we are ever unhappy is because we think we should be.
Now I could get a scientist to prove me wrong or something, but again, that’s up to the objective world to decide (although, if you were to look at those beliefs, babies don’t need therapy, all behaviours are positively purposeful and unhappiness is just due to the belief that we need it to move forward in life, you’ll quite scaringly see that maybe it IS objective…).
So yeah, I think for me it’s about being able to see what is subjective and what is objective – and making the best decisions from there.
In my opinion it is not up to either side to prove the existence or non-existence of God, the only duty of either side is to be aware of the other. I should know what an atheists points are in order to have a better understanding of the religion I chose. An atheist should be aware of what each religion stands for, some dabble and take morals and values from religions but in the end they can solidify why they choose to be who they are. Proof or disproof is only there to hurt one side or the other. I can do without that, I prefer doing what I please and not bothering you while you do what you please. So long as it doesn’t affect each other, ie religious battles.
Ah, I got thrown by claims requiring proof. That does make sense.
You choose not to get involved in religion because it’s about good and evil? Are you a nihilist? No offence meant, just seems odd to me to object to something as founded in morality. Courts of law and justice are founded in morality, after all.
I’d agree that we’re born without problems, but I don’t equate that to born the best we can be. I’d definitely say that there are things in life more important than happiness. Just my opinion, though, and I know I’m in the minority on that one.
A sense of right and wrong are more important. That is one, as it affects where you derive your happiness from. We are born very vulnerable, many things must be taught to us so that we can survive in the outside world. Babies respond only to stimuleses, rely on their instincts. We have developed passed that.
I’m sorry I was editing stimuli and accidentally added the comment. We as babies need to be taught stuff to grow and develop, religion not being one of the necessary, but it is one of the common. I just don’t think we are born happy, we are born in a contempt state and cry whenever our environment is adjusted. Later on we learn how to deal with that on our own.
Oh, I agree. i’m just reading a utilitarian outlook in James’ comments. The state of happiness we have at birth is given to us by others’ care, avoiding the concerns that go hand in hand with the ability to make ourselves happy. To a utilitarian I can see how that would be a perfect situation.
I’m just seeing a disconnect between that and ‘religion is about morality’, and trying to get to the bottom of it. Personally I think there’s a great deal atheists and agnostics can take from religion, including sound moral guidance, and hate to see people missing out.
As always I enjoy promoting discussion by posing counterpoints. I understood what you were doing. What I was aiming to do was to pose the counterpoints to james bringing along points of your response with me.
Nihilist isn’t quite the right term for me. It’s the idea that we put so much unwanted attention on good and evil and do not even question whether it exists in the real world… or just in our heads. It is an objective fact that every single thought, emotion and belief that has ever existed in the history of mankind has, or has had in the past, a positive purpose behind it based on what has been learned.
I do not consider good and evil as objective reality – I consider it subjective delusion. And if you know about the self-fulfiling prophecy, what we believe in appears to be true (that’s an objective Psychological fact – do some further research to see what I mean). This is why the illusion of good and evil feels so real – we have never stopped to think outside of that box.
The reason I think that everybody is good in this world and sometimes misguided is partly because of the evidence to support it, and partly because it just makes things easier. It’s also another reason why I don’t bother with religion – I don’t need to think of the future hopes of humans in that way.
I mean, you know how a young kid is constantly fascinated by everything he/she sees? They have not yet learned their way into the ‘good and evil’ trap which limits our creativity.
Has nobody ever actually questioned whether good and evil really exists? Or it is just an easy way to label everything in our lives? I sincerely doubt that the brain deliberately forces the person to feel bad WITHOUT learning (irrationally) that it’s the best way forward in life. It’s just not possible.
If we are born happy, we can only think our way out of it and back into it at some degree… we can therefore never ‘find’ happiness in life simply because it’s NEVER BEEN LOST. Underneath all of those perfectly well-meaning thoughts lies a basic sense of well-being.
Trust me people, we have hundreds, possibly thousands of unquestioned ‘assumptions’ in our lives…
Ok, so if I take a situation where a person gets mugged in the street. I know not of evil or good. As a child by the reaction of the mugee I can determine this is not common conduct between people. It is irregular. Another situation where the two gentlemen walk up to each other and shake hands, talk and then continue along their way. By reading the reaction of the two people involved this will seem fine and almost normal. Humans as creatures of habit attribute normal day activities as nice and predictable, something most humans enjoy. Irregular stuff like someone jumping out and scaring you gets a negative feeling attached to it. It is not by accident that we came to the conclusions of good and evil. These words existed before gods and devils had a side assigned to them. Regularity was considered good, irregularity was considered the opposite; bad. You will find days at work, which were good, were those that had everything you expected to happen, happen. The vice-versa also exists. I took the time myself to question not only those words in the past but alot of stuff. Math, how we assign numbers to an amount, etc it is hard to accept every notion when we simplify it with words. The feeling of displeasure is associated with a evilness. Like when you feel uneasy at night. Happiness is associated with good, most often as you are in a situation that is controllable and predictable. Like a day out at the park with the family.
You are quite right – that is more or less where ‘good and evil’ come from: emotion. It also kinda derived from how the start of civilization personified day and night.
But we are now in a stage where those feelings are not as necessary as before. The people of the past did not have the scientific and technological advances that we do today. We now know a LOT more about Psychology and Emotional Intellegence.
Think about this: when you fear becoming bankrupt… are you afraid of losing the money or are you afraid of losing the money and then feeling bad about it? If you want to end a relationship, are you afraid of ending it, are you afraid of ending it and feeling bad about it, or are you afraid of ending it, feeling fine about it, but feeling bad that you don’t feel bad about it?
The simple truth is that whatever you can do with unhappiness, you can do better when you are happy. If I went up to someone who was upset over an argument, I would go up to them and ask:
‘Why are you upset?’
‘Because I had a fight with my children…’
‘You love them, right?’
‘Of course.’
‘So… you are saying that by being upset, you are showing how much you care?’
‘….yeah’
‘… is that how you want to show them that you love them?’
‘Well… myabe… I.. I dunno.’
Is it really true that we are only unhappy because we think we should be? Very possibly…
We don’t get bonus points for making ourselves struggle more than we need to. We are in an age now where the negative emotions do not have to be so strong and so frequent… Feeling bad ABOUT feeling bad is the most irrational behaviour of all. Your feelings are there to work for you, not against you. It is one of the biggest misconceptions about ‘bad’ feelings…
I would more so be scared of being bankrupt because of what it entails. No money, no control. In my opinion I don’t generally feel bad because I should feel bad but I generally do feel bad.
I don’t see so clear a division between the objective and subjective as you. I’d agree entirely that good and evil are self-delusion, something you make up in your head for one reason or another. I’d also say that society, science and the computer I’m using right now came out of someone’s head.
The value of a thing has a lot more to do with how you choose to use it than anything else. Morality can be a great personal tool. Of course like any tool it’s important to recognise it for what it is, and not fall into the trap of refusing to see beyond it.
What I do is choose to believe in morality. Choose to make it important to me, not because I am socially conditoned to but because it is what I want. I want to be a better person, to be able to take pride in myself. The exercise of morality helps me achieve that, some of the time. Even though I’m fully aware good and evil are just subjective states of mind, it means a great deal to me to be able to self-describe as a good person.
I think that ‘the best way forward in life’ differs from person to person, and that it’s very important everyone explore their own. I also think that morality can help a great many people in that exploration, subjective or not.
The only way to see the division is on a literal point of view. If at any point you are arguing or backing up a statement with a personal experience it is a subjective. Objective is always referenced using one and it is also a theoretical way of looking at a situation. For instance one could have described the objective point of view first.
Yes good and evil’s meanings are subjective everywhere, even in the dictionary. The notion of evil and good can be achieved objectively with the instinct model. Where stimuli determine what we like and what we dislike. Using that model we attribute our dislikes, like the murder of other creatures as evil and our likes as good. One of the only ways to objectively reach those words, of course you would have to perform this experiment multiple times with multiple subjects.
I’d argue that any instance of subjectivity and objectivity is impure. Seeing them as definite things is not accurate, they’re more like a sliding scale. Whatever we see, know or even think is affected by a multitude of things beyond our control or knowledge. While we can strive for objectivity, to allow us to see clearly, or subjectivity to allow us to be free, we’ll never get all that far down toward either end.
That’s what I was driving at with the talk about things being out of people’s heads. The world we live in is the product of the subjective values and desires of our ancestors translated in objective reality. Trying to separate the two is just an impossible task.
Like everything, you can never get 100%.
What if you didn’t need to do anything to be a better person? What if you were fine the way you are now?
(I am in no way suggesting that you ‘should’ think about yourself in this way, it’s just a curious question if you wanna answer)
And for the record, ‘should’ is the most annoying word in the English language… I don’t like the idea of my subjective experiences being decided for me.
Oh, I am fine the way I am now. Ultimately it’s up to me to define ‘fine’ for myself, and I can make it as easy or as hard to achieve as I like. I don’t like the idea that I’ll never be any better than I am right now, even if ‘better’ is just whatever I dream up.
If Adam and Eve were the literal first people on earth rather than a metaphor, how did Cain find a wife? Seriously, I’ve wondered for a long time.
Maybe Cain sexed up a monkey…….
don’t tell the creationists that – they can’t can’t handle evolution linking humans to other primates, this just might push them over the edge into everyone being a product of immaculate conception, snerk
There the people who take the flintstones as a documentary. Hee. In the end those stories are meant as lessons rather than fact, I don’t understand why some take them as true recounts of events.
don’t remind me of my sister, i say this with all the love i can muster for her, but how ignorant can a college educated person be, who believes that the planet is only 6k yrs old and humans & dino’s lived side beside (and the carnavors didn’t eat the poeple)???
btw, i loved the flintstones – especially dino
I am sorry for the inadvertent reference?
Ask her what killed the dinosaurs then. That type of sarcastic conversation might break the ignorance. (I don’t mean offense, ignorance being used as it should references someone who doesn’t know of a topic fully and is currently misrepresented in her beliefs) So if you get her to understand the huge unlikely-hood of such a history she will be well informed.
First people… never said God didn’t create anyone afterwards, or through evolution…
The original Genesis included Lilith, the actual first woman. She was cast out into Nod for not wanting to be subservient to Adam and basically wanting to be his equal, or so the story goes.
So Cain most likely found her or her offspring, if she managed to get pregnant before being pushed out into the cold.
Look! Offensive!
The thing that irritates me (it does) is when religious ppl compare our ‘fallen’ western society with the more religious parts of the world.
The west is far more moral than anywhere else. If you look at the statistics for violence, child abuse, corruption (anything) the rates for the middle east or asia (excluding japan) are so much higher it doesnt bear comparison.
Things we get outraged about like the catholic abuse scandal are basically the norm. Same with any kind of institutionalised violence or abuse including within families (the rate of sexual abuse in the west is a few % of what it is in the middle east and asia).
ROFLMAO. So if I understand you correctly… unlike the rest of Asia, Japan is free from child abuse (especially sexualization) because it’s part of the moral West.
Where the flying flaming flippity #%@#$ did you get that from, Reader’s Digest?
Do you realize that the infamous sexual predation on children that occurs in the impoverished SE Asian countries you’re probably thinking about… is primarily funded by Japanese and Western businessmen? Those horrible immoral 12-year-old girls, tempting sweet innocent sex tourists with their evil ways. They ought to be ashamed of themselves.
Everyone is capable of atrocious evil, regardless of their skin color, and Westerners are absolutely no exception. Yes, a lot of horrible things happen all over the world. Yes, a lot of them have nothing to do with the West. But as any good cop could tell you, the fastest way to solve most crimes is to follow the money.
490 comments?! I knew this would happen!
To JamesHogg, you basically share the religious world view then.
They believe there is no morality except if it’s imposed by religion/god.
Thinking everythings ‘subjective’ and being reactionary about that… just means you’ll turn into a reactionary religious type (midlife conversion) when you get older.
It helps to believe that ‘good and evil’ do not exist because then nobody has to feel too bad about ‘doing the wrong thing’. Because then, AFTER that, a lot of other irrational beliefs form: ‘I am a bad person’, ‘I suck’, ‘Nobody is going to like me now’ etc.
Decisions aren’t the be all end all of life’s experience – it’s how you REACT to your decisions that determines your experience.
And trust me, I am never going to be religious. You think it’s rare seeing a religious scientist? How about a Psychologist who knows MAGIC and HYPNOTISM for goodness sake?!
So don’t place any bets
If you killed a dignitary in front of a lot full of people. Chances are many of them will hate you.
Erm… yeah lol, that’s why I’d not do it :/
Don’t think that just because I don’t believe in good and evil does not mean I commit evil deeds, by the way, lol. I don’t have the belief for that reason, I have it so I do not declare war on myself.
e.g. if I do not believe in good and evil, I wouldn’t beat myself up for every little thing such as play violent video games – while somebody who may believe in it would probably oppose to it as if it is ‘immoral’, and whoever plays them is also ‘immoral.’ Same with people who eat chocolate cake, beat themselves about it due to how ‘horrible’ it is (…), then eat MORE to compensate, then beat themselves up again, then eat again, then , oh, I seem to have put on weight…
I am smart enough to know objectively that commiting ‘evil’ actions does not do any favours. I know that bad actions done by people are just ways of trying to do the best for themselves… but other people will not see it that way. And that is why I don’t bother – because it’s just being friendly.
Was just being a sarcastic arse to prove everyone still cares what someone else thinks of them as we are egoists who like to be viewed as something better.
Meh, too long, didn’t read. Maybe this illustrates why it is so crucial to abide the constitution, to ENSURE personal liberty, to be socially tolerant in the sphere of law and equal protection thereof, to preserve this union not as a theocracy but as a constitutional republic where everyone CAN practice and believe what they want. Even if they’re jerks about it; they won’t be allowed to cause harm to others because of it. That’s the whole POINT. Massive government power grabs and sovereignty of the government OVER the individual is the worst thing that can happen, and people are applauding as it occurs. So stupid.
So you’re saying that the government does, or doesn’t have complete power over the people?
I believe I was fairly clear in what I said.
I didn’t ask for what you believed.
“..and people are applauding as it occurs.”
Are you saying that is has not fully happened yet, or is on its way?
So…It seems OMFG spoke to me last nite….He/She/It wants me to tell you all that Becky is full of it, but u all kno that already.
This was a totally sick movie…that woman should be ashamed of herself, and so should anyone who brainwashes others, especially children!
This picture reminds me of that old chestnut: You have the right to your own opinion, but not to force it on others.
Or to claim a higher opinion is the one you are currently expressing.
I’m sorry, I’m not from USA…. Who is she and what is the name of this movie she appears on that you guys are talking about?
Im not christian but i do hate homosexuals and liberals, so i form an uneasy partnerships with the religious.
Is that sarcasm, or are you really that sick?
Well then I consider you even worse then those christians who are ignorant.
Because you weren’t raised to hate them, or tricked into believing that.
You’re actually just that hateful on your own.
Wow. its amazing how a picture could cause enough posts that it takes almost half an hour to read them. the bottom line is, everyone has an opinion, so just fugetaboutit
I hate those zealots who try to shove their beliefs down others’ throats.
*smacks Cosman with a paintbrush* REPAINT!! REPAINT!!! AND THIN NO MORE!!!!!!
You gotta get these guys when they’re still in their primer.
Or else they’ll acrylic a baby.
Yep. And they’ll Krylon and hard too.
Its always hard to watch them come out of their egg(-shell) like that.
Oh, Froo, that was just horrible!
And funny. Horrible, and funny.
In usual fashion you make your entrance.
With the intelligent equivalent of lighting a fart on fire to make a point. Nice entrance.
The cue to cast stones on this post starts here and ends when I laugh at people for guessing my beliefs.
Funny, its brainwashing to be a crazy Christian, but it’s education to be a crazy, anti-American, pro terrorist liberal.
Communism has killed more people than Christianity.
Ow. I’d like to respond to this, but you are so wrong my brain just crashed.
Please don’t. If education is crazy this person is the sanest person around. Though I have a feeling he’s got it backwards.
Also whenever the argument group a has done more wrong than group b is presented; well I have trouble taking the person seriously. In the end both groups did something wrong.
frlk;jfdhhhgggbbbrkhjh
After ploughing through all the above, i’m off to wash my brain in some refreshing cold water, prop it up on some pillows and read some lolcats to relax.
Religion is like Linux. Think of it this way each sect is a distribution, each “religious distribution” has it’s own tools/ideas on how things should run. Each one however eventually points to the same fundimental idea. I would go into more detail, however this is just a random thought that came to me at work.
Now I have to go. Got some believing in Santa Claus I have to be doing, seeing at least there is some tangabile evidence he exists. i.e. all my cookies are gone and milk as well…. funny though my dad has a milk moustache and my mom has cookie crumbs on her shirt….
Yeah, but Linux is reliable.
Damn, the things I miss while I’m away.
Food for thought… The actions of the Christians during the Crusades might be related to the culture of the Jihadist in that they made themselves a longstanding mindset of animosity when they went a-plundering.
George Carlin, on narrowing the 10 Commandments down to a more logical two:
“Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself.”
LOL I *love* that piece! He was genius.
Free will is not the same as free agency. Within the context of *time* we all have free agency moment to moment to act in a certain way. Free will as concerns larger things – where you will be born, whether you will get cancer, when you will die? Pft. It doesn’t exist.
I thought I’d add that in since seth asked but I couldn’t find a reply button anywhere.
It’s WAY up there. Thanks
So free agency, or choice exists. Can your choices be reduced and expanded? Limited by circumstance? If you were sick, would you be as able to be compassionate and centered as when you were well? What is ‘inside’ this agency, and what is outside?
I hate to break in here, but Seth, I posted a question on your profile
Answered. Nothing serious, I hope?
Oh no. Having a debate over legislating morality with a friend is all
My slightly Libertarian side gets pissed over being made to wear a seatbelt, and we were on the slippery slope arguments of how much legislation is too much, and when it would go into effect.
I agree with you about the seat belt thing. I have a sneaking suspicion that it has to do with the insurance companies not wanting to pay out claims. However, if I want to die in a fiery crash, that should be my choice.
I can give you the reason the Canadian government made it mandatory. PUBLIC HEALTHCARE, the fact that our healthcare system is taken care of by the government means they impose laws in which they feel will reduce the burden upon said system. Seat belts save lives they say, well then seat belts have become mandatory.
Our healthcare hasn’t been public for years. That’s just propaganda mixed with a shadow of our past reputation.
To me it still seems like a plausible reason none the less. You know how cheap politicians can be. Take one of our mutual acquaintances for instance. D.
Suicide and assisted suicide aren’t legal either. I know it will be hard to get over it, but…try.
Check the darwinawards about the genius who rebelled against the seat belt law. Lulz ensue whenever I see somebody argue about it.
If I can take a class in order to keep from wearing a helmet on a motorcycle, why can’t I take a class to keep from wearing a seatbelt as long as I’m over the age of 18? I’m not saying keep all of your passengers unbelted, and for sure, anyone under the age of 18 needs to be strapped in tight. But after that, why are we telling adults what they can and can’t risk?
When you are the one picking up your dead corpse, you can make the rules. I always found it stupid that people get bent out of shape for being protected when they aren’t the ones having to clean up the most likely gruesome mess.
I always found the motorcycle opt out rule silly but hey, your death. As for cars, there are way more of them and as I stated before, you aren’t picking up the mess.
Of all the things to complain about and go slippery slope over, you pick seat belts? If you want to avoid seat belt laws, you can go drive on private roads where the cops won’t catch you. Have a ball.
When you are on a public road, wear the damn belt so when you hit somebody, you don’t fling your corpse at them.
LOL. I totally understand the safety part of it, and if there wasn’t a law, I would still wear my seatbelt. My problem with it is telling me I HAVE to wear it, when I’m driving past a 1 ton truck where you don’t have to wear one (in the state of Texas), a motorcycle (which will throw a living body at you that quickly becomes a corpse), or any other vehicle where there is an exception. I just can’t get past the government telling adults how they HAVE to act.
-
Warnings on hair dryers about not tossing them into the bathtub with you annoy me just as much.
You realize those warnings on hair dryers are there because somebody was stupid so they have to assume you are stupid too, right?
I always find those hilarious and try to imagine the lawsuit.
The hair dryer thing annoys me, too. Along with the ‘don’t run this lawnmower over your foot’ deal. But the opt-out rule for motorcycles only serves to feed the organ donor pool. Mind, I’m a registered organ donor–when I die, please recycle!–but I also wear a helmet when bicycling. It would be one thing to be paralyzed, but I really do NOT want to be a patient who is turned twice a day, with the mental capacity of a house plant, thank you very much.
As for seat belts, they serve to help the driver stay behind the wheel in an emergency–and to keep the passenger out of the driver’s way. And I’ve heard a few grisly stories from a tow-truck driver about the accidents he has helped clean up. There seem to be a large number of adults who totally lack a clue and need those rules. Why else would do some SUV drivers tailgate at high speeds?
WYRM! hi
Heya!
Hey, what ever happened to Uncle Fester?
A determinist would have an issue with free will that is for sure. But now that you have brought up time, I had quite a row with my class over a topic. I posed the situation where were it possible to time travel, could you go back in time and stab/kill yourself? We first determined how we would like to regard time and the universe. Whether we believe time to be a single strand in which we can go back, but it is the same single time-line, or time making a multiverse. Where every time we go back and alter something we go down a different reality. (For this arguments sake reality is immutable and undeniable).
Free agency is great if you’re a star athlete.
What free will means for you will be determined by your views on reality and self. Someone who believes in hard materialism is pretty much tied to determinism, and someone like me who believes in idealism has a tough enough time saying what self is at all, let alone what it can and cannot do.
It’s like a giant flowchart, where at each point you can choose ‘do I think this or this’, and then follow down where those answers lead you. For me, free agency is control over the self, everything else is beyond us. And our choices can be pressured, but never forced. Inside our own heads we are always free, even if acting on that freedom can be all but impossible sometimes.
I feel that we do have complete control of the personal choices that we make, but that is as far as free will goes. I cannot decide I will live through this day, that depends on whether the drivers around me collectively are careful and make choices to be safe drivers. I would add that the summation of the free will of everyone else amounts to a scary force that puts you in a situation where your free will is merely reactionary. For example being mugged; you can choose to give over your money or make a break for it or kick their butts. Though this type of free will, that choice was imposed upon the person.
Exactly. You can’t choose your circumstances, only how you’ll act in them, the choices you make. This is why I often say it is our exercise of freedom, the sum of our choices, that says more about you than anything else. We will be who we make ourselves.
I’ve seen the film. It was frightening.
[And I collect horror movies as a hobby.]
I’ve seen firsthand how a fundamentalist upbringing can destroy someones sense of self-worth, and pervert their ability to enjoy normal things like sex.
[Personally I was lucky enough not to be raised with any religion at all.]
I feel so strongly that it is a blight on society I made it a major theme in my writing.
http://dawnrazor.blogspot.com/
LUCKY!?!? WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND COULD CALL THAT LUCKY!?!? DUDE HELL IS REAL HOT. HAVE FUN. I’LL BE PRAYING FOR YOU AND ANYONE WHO AGREES THAT NOT BEING RAISE CHRISTIAN IS LUCKY.
Hey love are you aware that you’re yelling? Tone it down a bit, please.
…… this is just sad.
Christians claim that their God is both omnipotent and benevolent. The fact that evil exists in this world irrefutably proves that claim false. If God is omnipotent, he has the power to destroy evil. If he is benevolent, he has the desire to do so. The fact that evil exists means that either he has not the power to destroy it. In which case he is not omnipotent, or he has not the desire. In which case he is not benevolent. He cannot be both. Otherwise evil would not exist.
Evil is a product of humankind’s free will, bestowed upon us by an omnipotent and benevolent g-d.
It’s up to us to exercise our free will in such a way as to eradicate evil.
Please, spare me the platitudes! According to your Bible, evil predates the creation of man. Remember the “war in heaven” which caused Satan and his fellow dissenters to be “cast out”? Satan then decides to make it his mission to corrupt God’s pet creation and mankind becomes a pawn in the power struggle between two spoiled children. (see talking snake and magic apple myth)
The point is that God cannot destroy evil. Therefore, he is not omnipotent.
Well, he chooses to let Satan live actually, he doesn’t want to destroy it, not because he can’t because technically he would have to kill to do so. In the book of revelations though the final battle does take place and God does kill the forces of evil. Those are the stories, I don’t find them to be airtight either. It isn’t exactly irrefutable evidence though Stephen.
Have you watched Constantine? In my opinion that is what our God is doing. He has a wager with the devil on the souls of all humanity, if humans do the right thing in general, (greater number) god wins, other way; devil wins. One thing is that they cannot directly interfere into the humans’ lives. It is a pretty cool concept that could also account for the evil present in our world. I am not presenting this as fact, just as something to ponder.
What you are describing my friend is not an omnipotent, benevolent God, but a vain, capricious monster who cares more about winning his bet with Satan than he does about the souls he supposedly created. As for his not wanting to kill in order to destroy evil. Please. Don’t make me laugh! The amount of mass murder and genocide orchestrated by God over the centuries make Hitler look like a Sunday school teacher. I’m curious. Do you really believe this stuff, or, as I suspect, do you just put it out there because you love the debate?
God doesn’t have any such wager, at any rate. It wasn’t really a “wager” with Job either, because God naturally knew Job would withstand the test; it was only a “wager” to Satan, who isn’t omnipotent.
I mean, omniscient, obviously.
Can you not see how ridiculous this is? God and Satan arguing over human souls. Doing nothing to reduce their suffering. In fact, in Job’s case, actually orchestrating it. Meanwhile, back on Earth, Job, a regular guy trying to raise his family and do what he thinks is right, finds himself in the middle of a shit storm because the two fools upstairs are trying to settle a score. I find the entire concept absolutely obscene!
Ps Stephen, am I that translucent?
I wouldn’t call you translucent my friend. I’ve just been around this block enough times to recognize the signs. It’s not a negative thing though. It’s good that you are willing to debate the issues. It means that you are actually thinking about what you believe instead of just letting them ram it down your throat like the rest of the “sheep”. Speaking of sheep. I would like to commend you and AC, who has also responded to this thread for not stooping to the adolescent
level of others I have encountered here.
OK. Let’s get back to business. I would like to respond to something you said in one of your replies. You mentioned the fact that God is omniscient. I’m sure you already understand what that means. That he knows everything about everything. Past present and future. Let’s explore that, just for the hell of it.
The church teaches us that, while our physical body is the product of human procreation (after Adam and Eve) God himself personally creates each soul. If that is truly the case, then it follows that before he brings a soul into the world he already knows where that soul will end up. All arguments for “free will” and “freedom to choose” aside, God already knows what choices every soul will ultimately make. I submit that, by the very act of creation, God himself condemns some souls to suffer eternally in brutal agony. What kind of monster would do that? Why create something just to watch it suffer? And please, don’t insult my (or your) intelligence with the stock party line. ” The ways of God are beyond the realm of man’s understanding.”
“The ways of God are beyond the realm of man’s understanding.”
Of course they are – we aren’t omniscient or omnipotent. Go ahead and call Him a monster – there are plenty of people who suspect God is real, they just hate Him. That’s nothing new, and it’s preferable to the alternatives. More chance of waking up one day and submitting oneself to His will after all
I hate to disappoint you but I don’t hate God. I simply deny that he exists. Well, that’s not entirely accurate. I don’t state categorically that God doesn’t exist. Just that if he does, he is definitely not the creature described in the bible and takes no active interest in the affairs of this world. I have no agenda to further the “cause” of atheism. I just want to raise people’s awareness of the dangers of religion. Any religion that teaches that it is the “only true path” and everyone else is damned is fanaticism and is inherently dangerous. That kind of thinking does not unite people. It divides them. It builds fences and walls. Causes conflict and starts wars. Your belief system tells yo that the world will never be united unless all people come together under the common banner of Christianity. There are millions of other people in the world who believe no less fervently, the same thing about their own religion. These ridiculously archaic beliefs are seething and grinding against each other. Fostering hatred and religious elitism and if left unchecked will one day ignite the infamous final conflict you all so fervently believe is coming. Unfortunately it will just be a war. Nothing more. and when all is said and done, the only thing that will be left is a burned out, lifeless cinder. No-one will come on a great white horse to rescue the believers. No thousand year reign of peace. No multitude of the faithful sitting around the throne on a “sea of glass” stroking God’s…ego. And for what? Because it’s “what Jesus would do”?
” Any religion that teaches that it is the “only true path” and everyone else is damned is fanaticism and is inherently dangerous. That kind of thinking does not unite people. It divides them.”
Correct. From Matthew 10: “14 And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet. 15 Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!…34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’[e] 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.
40 “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.”
“I am the Way, the Truth and the Life. No man comes to the Father but through me.”
John 10: “1 “Most assuredly, I say to you, he who does not enter the sheepfold by the door, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. 2 But he who enters by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. 3 To him the doorkeeper opens, and the sheep hear his voice; and he calls his own sheep by name and leads them out. 4 And when he brings out his own sheep, he goes before them; and the sheep follow him, for they know his voice. 5 Yet they will by no means follow a stranger, but will flee from him, for they do not know the voice of strangers.”
Words of Jesus – i.e. God. I’m sorry you don’t care for it, but again, them’s the breaks.
If you don’t have any belief in a possible God, you should stop telling us how horrible He really is. You don’t even know Him.
Well in a sense God knows the choices a mortal will be presented with, this is where it does get sketchy. He knows of all possibilities of a souls exit. He attempts to guide it along the right path but He gave free will as an almost I wash my hands of this. (I know you will crucify me for this (no pun intended) I will start working on another response soon) So he allows us to make our choices. He knows what choices we can make, all of them, but he does not interfere. So he doesn’t create a soul to die and suffer. He creates it so that it may enjoy the experience of life. There is also always an allowance for atonement. I know that you will bring up the part where He must know what choices a person will make. Yes He can know that, but since He has given us free will, He attempts to give us guidance away from the wrong choices, which can ultimately change the outcome. It is upon us to A listen to him or B learn from the mistake and do better C keep making the wrong choices and then repent for forgiveness or D choose to be damned on purpose.
It’s amazing how so many Bible beaters don’t love Obama. He and Jesus are both massive egotists that go around make false promises (and contradict themselves) so people will follow them and cause the end of the world in their name. The same could probably be said about any politician, though. At least, until Obama makes wine out of water.
All this talk of Christians causing division reminds me of that backwater politician who almost killed his own son because he (and the rest of his family) were trying to convince him that creating lists to kill abortion clinic doctors was crazy. Guess which passages he used to justify himself? Matthew 10:35-36.
It’s okay, though. The world will continuously move forward, and in the end those that spread the message of violence in the name of religion will die out (and probably be replaced by those spreading a message of violence in the name of other things). Hopefully by that, point, though, those people will be seen for the extreme sociopaths that they are/were and locked up.
Emperor, when I look at what you wrote, all I can see to that response (and the hundreds like it I have heard in theology classes) are that God used to be omniscient and omnipotent (re: OT), but now that we’ve reached an age of reason, the Church had to make up an excuse and say “well he IS omnipotent… he just doesn’t display it to us, you know. He has the power! He just doesn’t want to use it.”
Also, correct me if I understood this incorrectly, but you said he doesn’t interfere in human life… however, he does guide us. Isn’t that still interference? If he wanted humans to truly have free will, I imagine he just wouldn’t do anything and let natural order sort things out, i.e. good people do good things naturally, without someone reciting pages from a thousands-year-old book.
I beg your pardon, but “shake the dust off your heels” is NOT promoting violence, fool. And I use the word fool in the biblical sense here.
So I take it you believe that all who genuinely believe the bible and in Christianity are dangerous sociopaths, eh? Just like Fisty – nice. Nice little bigotry there. And you’d like them rounded off into CAMPS, would you? I sure hope you never invoke Godwin’s law, because if the jackboot fits, pal, WEAR IT.
Well by interference, I meant as direct. Also if he offers everyone the same guidance it would be natural? Seeming as there is no difference between how anyone is treated and the message we all hear. (Sorry that sounded a little Bible Belterish to me, scuse me while I purify myself by reciting the periodic table…………….) Yea so if everyone gets the same, all people for all time, can you really convince me it wasn’t natural for him to offer guidance. Tough road, but I leave it open to you. Knight to g-6, your move.
Annie, could you present your idea with a little less pow wow? It takes away from your message. Have a little bit of patience and forgive a little more. Please.
He just called Christians sociopaths and advocated they be gathered into prison camps.
So the answer there would be, “No.”
You present your way and I’ll present mine. Thanks in advance.
See, that’s the problem. You don’t see it as promoting violence (but promoting divisions, which lead to violence, is perfectly okay?). You are not the primary world-scholar know-it-all of the Bible. There are many out there, like the above mentioned, that see it as promoting violence and use it to justify their sociopathy.
I do not believe all Christians to be sociopaths. I’m very good friends with many, including my own family (I’m sure you’ll throw a troll-insult in there somewhere). I believe people like you, who justify such drastic division as to cast judgment upon those in a commenting forum in the name of god, to be sociopaths. I believe people like you should receive therapy with the other sociopaths.
To be honest, though, I have slowly come to think that, on occasion, fascism may be the best answer. Except instead of rounding up Jews, gypsies, etc. I’d have all those that would separate themselves from others over racial, religious, or cultural boundaries (I see the hypocrisy here, don’t worry) rounded up and stuck in a camp. I wouldn’t do anything, though, because they would just kill each other. Problem solves itself without anyone on the outside being endangered! Ta-da!
Ok, you inferred that. I could also inferred that, but then I took into account that I have debated with veritas before and I know he means no malicious intent. That aside, we both read the same post but only you flew into an attack. How would one who just called Christians sociopaths be convinced otherwise with a response like that? I am not asking to change who you are, just not to be so aggressive all the time with your point. Like I said it steals away from your message; as people will respond to the attack and the emotions they infer rather than the content of what you wrote.
“To be honest, though, I have slowly come to think that, on occasion, fascism may be the best answer.”
That’s not at all surprising. You suck at this.
You MIGHT want to read his last comment again then, Emperor so and so.
As seen before, Annie is making wild assumptions… but that’s okay, it’s just her nature. I think she just wants to get to heaven to say “I told you so” to the people that didn’t.
@ Emperor:
The problem is, people do get different messages. Muslims in poor areas of the world are fed the message that the west (and thus, Christianity) are evil. People living in jungles and subsisting off of what they make get none at all. In America, some are told a message of forgiveness, and others are told a *cough* message of division or violence. He may have given the world a book to guide us, but he obviously didn’t think it through very well, because he didn’t take into account that different people interpret things differently based on external experiences. The nature of the world, and people, is so chaotic that to say everyone got the same message is neglecting the problem, I think.
Emperor, don’t worry about Annie forgiving me; I don’t want it, and I only debate amicably with people that have earned my respect in interaction with others, such as yourself.
No assumption there; you just claimed you would see us rounded into prison camps or readjustment camps – never mind the constitution or their religious freedom. And that was based on Jesus’ words, not mine. Quite obviously, the word of Christ DOES divide people – prima facie. You just don’t like it, and you dislike it enough to deny us our basic civil liberties and impose your sectarian will upon us in violation of all our most basic rights.
And you think *I* don’t deserve respect?
A petty, loathsome tyrant like you deserves nothing but censure.
Why do I suck at this? Because I realize that most people will argue the same points over and over until they die screaming at each other that they’re right and the other is wrong? Or because you can’t understand irony?
Besides, I never said the camps would be bad. Five star accommodations for all! Until you dirty bomb each other into oblivion, that is.
Oh of course, I get it now — HAPPY FUN CAMPS! What an utter, absolute, moronic fool.
@anniemcphee – Please, don’t quote your book at me. As an ordained minister, I spent many years studying it extensively. I have read and analyzed every word in it several times over. I have walked the “Cristian path” with passion and commitment only to find that in the end it’s all just smoke and mirrors and so many empty words.
So please…Spare me the inane platitudes.
Well how about this – once you empty Gitmo of the terrorists and bring them here, you can round up bible-believing Christians and send them there! By all accounts, they have pretty damn luxurious accommodations there too. Except there are far too many of us, and we aren’t going to tolerate your fascism.
Scripture hits a little nerve there, eh, Steven? Too bad.
So I was right, you don’t understand irony.
It’s okay, I’m sure you’ll get it eventually.
For future reference: being that I haven’t yet executed my horrible, maniacal plan, I can’t be called a tyrant.
Like examples in everyday life it is the human free will to interpret that message in any way we choose. Yes God sees this before hand but will always offer us a chance at reprieve. So it is not His fault his message gets perverted, inferences are the root of the evil.
@ Emperor:
But when can any of us know that our interpretation is wrong or right? I’m sure Gerry Falwell went to his deathbed believing his message, and many fundies like the Westboro Baptist Church will too. Are we just told when we arrive at the pearly gates? “Sorry, you chose the wrong path. Off to purgatory (or hell, your choice) you go.”
I feel like there is something tremendously wrong (as in, “evil”) in that, that he would let people suffer through an incorrect interpretation without ever knowing the right one. I understand it may be presented at some point, but when fire-and-brimstone Oklahoman minister is convincing small children from birth that Catholics worship Mary higher than God and that they’re all perverts, they’re not going to be able to see the correct message when they’ve reached adulthood (basing this off of how a child’s psychology develops).
That is the thing, we can never know we are right, so we just have to do our best. We try and live our lives doing the best we can, using common sense would help but hey some people use religion as more than a moral crutch; more like a moral foundation, walls and roof. That is the wrong way to approach it, religion should be more of a spice, or more of a part of the meal, rather than an overpowering flavo(u)r.
@ Emperor:
Don’t worry, I’m not British. Or maybe you are?
So then I ask, if we can never know we are right, where is the guidance? Some would have you believe that there is only one path to Jesus, and that’s only through their brand of Christianity. If that’s true, that means the rest of humanity that isn’t part of that is doomed, all because they don’t know the specific tenets of Episcopal-Baptist-Presbyterian-Sectarian Christianity, no matter how good a person they were… they just didn’t do something right.
I understand that that’s how you understand is the wrong way to approach it, but then if YOU’RE right, all those that do may be doomed, as well.
As I said before, such a setup reeks of evil to me. That, or it reeks of people that didn’t know what they were doing when they wrote their holy books.
I think you’re bridging a gap that can’t really be bridged, namely between Christianity and Deism.
Oh, I am Canadian, and I do it out of habit from failblog and for all other possible people who may be reading.
The guidance is there in the morals we contain. We believe that those are given to us from our conscience which is our soul helping us out when it can. (Just regurgitating here as I have nothing that will hands down get you to believe, since as always there is no concrete, just faith.)
You know what, I think I side with Anniee here. Which I can’t believe I’m saying, but anyway. Veritas’ comments made me wince. My knee-jerk reaction would have been similar to hers.
“end those that spread the message of violence in the name of religion will die out (and probably be replaced by those spreading a message of violence in the name of other things). Hopefully by that, point, though, those people will be seen for the extreme sociopaths that they are/were and locked up.” Context matters, when I read this post, I do not personalize it, as he used a generality. People that a sociopaths and use religion to justify their violence. So he is not referencing anyone purposely. Aside from that, does it really hurt that bad that we have to go for the jugular back? Remember we all were in the same boat reading the comment. We are all taught to turn the other cheek, seems only a few exercise it. Be it the least or most faithful, we should always give it the benefit of the doubt that harm was not intended until further insults are made.
Now, now, Eric, be careful – don’t strain yourself
Is it *always* going to be necessary to temper every instance of agreeing with me in the slightest with a “zomg I can’t believe this, but”? I’m really not the boogeyman.
Plus it appears we’re both Christians – that ought to count for a little something, wouldn’t you think?
*ahem*
The three of us.
Somehow that link got thrown in. Whoops.
For “the ones that wrote Leviticus,” I meant the Jews, not the Christians. Temporal paradoxes are a no-no.
Yeah, Anniee, we’re both Christians (Emperor too), but don’t forget I’m about as far left as Christians get, so being Christian is about all we’re gonna see eye to eye on.
That being said, I certainly think we’ve found a common cause in defending our religion. And there a few people who take their hatred of Christianity too far.
Emperor – Why would I “crucify” you my friend? You are one of only a couple people I have encountered here who actually has anything intelligent to say. I may not agree with your beliefs but you present your point of view succinctly and thoughtfully. I enjoy debating with you my friend. With only one or two notable exceptions, no-one else I’ve met here is capable of having an original thought. Instead, they resort to slinging insults and quoting scripture. YAWN!!! Heard it all before.
Anyway, as much as I enjoy our conversations I’m afraid I’m going to have to take an indefinite hiatus. My band is going into the studio starting Wednesday to begin recording our second CD. This translates into months of grueling, intense work. Leaving little or no time for anything else. Despite what people may think, recording is really not very much fun.
I may drop by occasionally and throw out a “teaser” just to stir the pot (I’m kind of evil that way) but I’m afraid I won’t be able to commit to any extended debating for a while.
Before you breathe a heavy sigh of relief at the thought of getting rid of me, rest assured, I fully intend to return once this recording gig wraps up. If you’re still around maybe we can pick up where we left off.
Take care my friend
Stephen
Oh I will be waiting, CONTEMPLATING.
* rubs hands together maniacally * Well hope you do return, oh and I just put the crucify in for laughs. Hee hee.
heck, even if I don’t agree with you on this positively ENTHRALLING debate, I agree, you can easily make a hobby out of angering people on the internet. I defend my faith where I deem it necessary, but I never made many internet friends, and I didn’t think it mattered that much *shrugs*
The debate of course. I enjoy playing the devils advocate, even if it means taking up the side less defended. Though I offer you another outlook. He may not care about the bet so much so as He has faith that humans which he supposedly created in the image of him will do the right thing when the time comes. The bet just plays to the devil’s fancy.
Taking into account that God is benevolent, if He loses, which since he is Omniscient I don’t think he should, but free will is screwy. I doubt he will let the devil have the souls anyway. Oh and in reference to the mass murdering, not as a defense, as it is a horrible one, but many a god’s have gone to great lengths for their people. He seems to be benevolent to only those willing to accept, (or repent upon proof) to all others well, He is just downright nasty. Poor Egyptians.
Although, much later when the Egyptians accepted God (at a time when the Israelites didn’t) God accepted and had mercy on them…. Somewhere in Isaiah, I think…
Yup, this just ties into our previous conversation at the top though. I have to ask a religious superior what kind of God would create a day like passover? Meaning all the killings he performed on that day.
A God who is much bigger than we are. A God who gives life and who takes it away. A God who is mercy on one hand and judgement on the other. A God we shall never fully understand but can have a go at trying to lol…
A God who best described Himself to us as “I am who I am”. That is the best dumbing down He could do for us?
QED
Though many would say hardly to that, I will let it be. I think it isn’t fair that he takes lives of innocents just to save others. Others who were oppressed but not necessarily guaranteed to die.
“Otherwise evil would not exist.”
The words of a spiritual child – and my goodness, it’s something we’ve NEVER heard before! Truly fresh and incisive wit – did you come up with it all by yourself?
@Annie – My my aren’t we testy today. I came here for some good, clean, conversational debate that would hopefully get some people to actually think. But if you want to stoop to bashing each other, I guess we could do that too. How typically Christian of you.
Dude, seriously, I hate that shit. There is no reason to talk that way about all Christians. We’re not all out there to bash people who don’t think the same way we do. I may not agree with Anniee’s reactions a lot of the time, but I can understand her defensive nature on this subject. All I’ve heard about is how awful Christians are and how terrible the religion is. As a liberal Christian, I don’t find myself siding with the more conservative people on this site very often, but in this case I seem to have joined the minority group here (being Christians naturally). We’re up to almost 1200 posts, and there’s been some nasty stuff there.
Point taken. My apologies.
OOPS. Cut myself off.
“We’re not all out there to bash people who don’t think the same way we do.”
Would you not agree that, being an atheist, you believe that I am going to hell because I “don’t think the way you do”?
Are you dead? Then you’re not “going” anywhere right now. If by the time you die you aren’t saved by the blood of Christ, you are a thief and a robber and will not share in the kingdom of heaven but will be relinquished to the lake of fire reserved for the devil and his angels. If by the time you die you have been saved, you will not. It’s really that simple. I am not in heaven yet, therefore I do not judge nonbelievers – at some point after my death whence the judgment comes I will know who is in hell and the smoke of their torment goes up forever in the sight of the blessed. Harsh, but there it is. I don’t always love it either, but having come to believe through much study that the bible is objectively true, I accept it.
There are many parts of my faith where I’m ambivalent. And despite both being Christians, this is where Anniee and I split a bit. I have a hard time believing an all loving God would send any of His children to eternal torture. Even if my kids decided they hated me and denied my existence, I could never condemn them to such a fate so I don’t see how a deity that is far better than me could do it. On the other hand, I also have issues with the most evil people in the world getting into eternal paradise. So I’m torn. Not a very clear explanation, but I hope I answer your question.
)
(Oh, and apology accepted.
Your explanation is perfectly clear my friend, and is precisely my point. NOBODY knows for sure. Pedantic, dogmatic people like Annie and some others I have met here who claim to KNOW that their path is the only true path and that everyone else is wrong, irritate the hell out of me because they insult my intelligence. As well as their own. They have little or nothing of any consequence to add to the discussion so they resort to slinging insults and quoting impotent Bible passages.
I firmly believe that when all is said and done, we are going to find out that NONE OF US had a clue as to what was really going on.
My post is “awaiting moderation,” apparently because of its length, so I’m saying this before I go to bed:
My post about fascism was IRONIC, in response to Annie’s huge jump from me wanting sociopaths locked up to her assumption that I want all Christians in internment camps. I was toying with her by using her assumptions against her. I don’t hate anyone (Eric-in-STL), but I’m also not going to defend myself anymore to people that don’t understand how to read complete sentences in context or understand what it means when I said, twice, IT WAS IRONIC. You don’t need tone of voice to understand when you have the meaning written in plain sight.
I also had another response to Emperor, which you’ll see when it goes through.
*Awaits patiently*
Oh, my issue wasn’t with the fascism bit. I saw where you were going with that. I just winced a bit with comparing Jesus to politicians and calling him a massive egotist with false promises. For Christians, that stings. Hard. Just so you know. And if Anniee or myself come across as harsh or jumping the gun, it’s because in these 1200ish posts there’s been a lot of Christian bashing, and we’re severely on the defensive. Like I told Stephen, I don’t agree with Anniee’s knee-jerk responses a lot of the time, but I definitely see where she’s coming from in these posts.
Well, I’m sorry if that bit offended you Eric. However, I can’t change the way I feel. I firmly believe that no one man has, or ever had, all the answers. The Buddha never claimed to know all things, and he never told his followers that if they want to be “saved,” they have to follow and worship him as a god – he told them that their enlightenment would be self-made and self-found, and nobody else could give them the answers. They had to learn about themselves, not lose themselves worshiping God.
The *self-made* man is the one that succeeds. I would even say I may be more of a patriot than many, because I truly believe in the “American Dream”. The self-made man, who rises from nothing to have the life he dreamed of… without God’s help. You can’t say that it’s our fault when bad things happen but God’s when good ones do. The reason my family isn’t in bankruptcy right now is because my father is pulling 80-hour weeks at two shitty jobs. This is a guy with a degree in finance that used to be the president of two different credit unions, before greedy assholes screwed him out of the jobs. So now to keep us out of severe debt and keep me in school, he busts his ass. Is it divine providence that’s keeping me there? No, it’s my father working his damned hardest. HE may believe in God, and that belief may or may not keep him going, but that’s not God helping, that’s his belief. No, I refuse to discredit my father and disrespect him by saying that God had anything to do with this. Many families aren’t even lucky enough to be out of bankruptcy, but still, they believe that Jesus will lead them out of it to the holy land of having a house that won’t be foreclosed upon.
When I call Jesus a politician, it’s because I firmly believe that he was nothing but a master manipulator, who convinced a bunch of ancient idiots that he was magical. Was he intelligent? Yes. Was he charismatic? Sure. Was he a god? I highly doubt it. I don’t pretend to know the guy, unlike many Christians. I just call it like I see it, which is to say that I think you’ve all been duped into believing an ancient text is relevant in the modern age as anything beyond a recreational read. To say that you all think one man will lead you to happiness, when all you’re doing is filling a hole that wouldn’t be there with serious self-searching.
Yeah. Still offended. REALLY offended. If people don’t want to believe Jesus is their savior then fine. I’m not gonna press the point. But you insult him, and that gets me a fair bit riled up. Even with your attempts to make it sound reasonable and polite, it doesn’t sit well with me. Jesus was at the very very least, a great guy with a great message. And I’m way too tired to think of a response to another wince-inducing statement at the end there. Ouch on the filling a hole part. Geez.
Well, them’s the breaks, I guess. Nobody’s ever gonna agree with everything anyone says. Honestly, though, I wasn’t insulting him. I did not call him stupid, or a jerk, or an idiot. All I did was call him human. A manipulative human, yes, but there are many people in the modern world (politicians) that can be called manipulative without negative connotations. All it means is that they’re good at what they do (lead large masses of generally ignorant people). I remember what you said earlier about knee-jerk responses, and I can understand that… but take a look at what I said again. Where did I insult him? “Egotist,” maybe, if you view that as insulting. I see it as a neutral personality trait. False promises? Politicians do it all the time, nobody hates them for it. I’d even be open to the idea that Jesus had a psychological disorder and really did believe himself to be the son of god. That’s not an insult to his person, right? All I said was, essentially, that I don’t see him as a godly savior of humanity.
You may feel that you know him personally, so in that sense I can see you being offended… but really, compare that to if I were criticizing a family member or a friend. How well do you really know Jesus? You know what you read in a book that has been translated and interpreted over thousands of years, and what men at podiums tell you. But do you know Him? Were you there when he was alive to get to know him inside and out, his flaws and his strengths?
This is in a sincere spirit, I really would like to know what your thoughts are. I would at least like to see why what I say is so offensive, so I can consider it and maybe avoid it in the future if I in turn understand it to be unreasonable.
If you want a reason for my cynicism, all you have to do is take a good, hard look at the world around you. Maybe in a few years I’ll lighten up, but as it is, I’m (mostly) happy with a life that I understand to be here and now. I do not like to play it safe, and that is what I see as the main principle of Christianity.
Froo, get real. Your version of being “nice” to me was usually like several others’ here – “My god, she’s the fetid afterbirth of an intellectual hippies’ abortion, now Anniee, I’m only trying to HELP you here” so – pfft. I’d rather be ignored than have that type of “nice” thrown at me.
Seth, I do appreciate your unexpected championship; as you say I’m not a troll or a sock or whatever else the majority opinion has been at one time or another. Regardless of what comes of it, thank you for giving it a go.
Also froo, you’re known by the company you keep. Try to remember that in the context of the larger world outside this site.
Just stop already! “…As we forgive them that trespass against us,” how does that go again? Yes, unfair things were said. Yes, people here treated you like dirt. But someone has to be the bigger person and unclench their fists first.
Why do you suppose Jesus recommended turning the other cheek?
Man you are good at quoting. Such nice timing too.
If I recall correctly, there has been a debate to that meaning since being smacked like that was dismissive and Jesus might have asked to have both sides of his faced smacked to be acknowledged as the other man’s equal.
*face
This lady needs to read Matthew 7:1 “Judge not lest ye be judged.”
And the rest of you need to stop taking people like this as an example of Christianity and stop the whole Christian-bashing thing in general.
If you don’t believe, that’s fine, but don’t condemn others for believing. At that point you have become a hypocrite.
amen
Okay, I can’t be bothered to read throught the comments looking for a “fundie”. Anyone who wishes to defend this woman and/or the fundamental American Christian attitude please e-mail me for the debate of their life.
At last check I hope your email inbox is empty, because as a fellow Christian, to her not to you, I don’t agree with her at all. (I do not know your religion or lack there of so I won’t assume).
i am a Christian too and i think anyone who is stupid enough to hate God, needs to be locked up. maybe it will teach some people a lesson. and Midge, i will never deny God and no i am not e-mailing you. if you want to hunt me down with a rifle, i won’t deny God
You say one thing but then misrepresent yourself in the same paragraph.
I really hope your parents’ NetNanny filter just somehow missed this website and let you come here.
“[A]nyone who is stupid enough to hate God, needs to be locked up.”
I have a friend I’d like you to meet. His name is the First Amendment.
C’mon NObama, just one quick debate then I’ll stop, promise. If you feel sure enough to state your faith, why not debate it? I can swear I’m onely interested in a rational discussion- no flaming or insults.
amen jojo. and remember 2 Timothy 1-4. i don’t remember it by heart cause i just found it so go read it
NOBama I wish you would come around more
okay fair lady, if you share NOBama’s sentiment why not argue his cause- please e-mail anonymous.wintershadow@googlemail.com
It’s purely coincidental, but for some reason I’m reminded of the Little House on the Prairie episode where Nellie Oleson read her school essay, “Why Jesus Loves Me More Than Most.”
My comment isn’t for anyone specifically – but just in general.
I think the majority of people realize that surviving in this ‘world’ we live is difficult. It is difficult no matter your faith system, beliefs, religion or lack thereof.
So – why, in threads like this, do we tear each other apart? Honestly. It’s like everyone has been turned into back yard bullies. What next? Do we start laughing because the other side just had their mom’s die? HAHAHAHA. Nyah.
We are /all/ trying to get through the best we can.
So ya’ll are fine, okay, work out your own faith/belief to your own abilities it is NONE of my business just as mine is none of yours. Geez!
As for this woman? As horrible as she is? That is not Christianity as it is practiced across the board. My issue with this post is that it doesn’t make fun of her – it makes fun of a whole religion that does not nessasarily agree with or fall in line with everyhting she’s doing.
Then again – I have issues with posts that use ONE person to make fun of a whole people group. Kind of feels like an ‘ism’ to me, ya know?
Awesome post. More please?
It is imperative that we understand the danger of any religion with an apocalyptic, doomsday scenario. Which includes just about all of them. The reason being that in the past few decades mankind has developed the technology to make it happen all by himself. Now you have people in positions of power and influence (with their fingers on the button so to speak) Who not only believe that the end of the world is inevitable but they actually welcome it because, according to their beliefs, it will bring into being a “glorious new kingdom” in which they will be rewarded for their faith and their enemies will be “cast into the lake of fire.” If this moronic thinking is left unchecked, sooner or later one of those idiots is going to “push the button.”
Religion, in the original meaning, means relinking or refocusing on the Truth. Too bad that most religions focus on the truth instead of Reality. But check this: many religious people really do seek the Truth, while many scientists only seek belief. Whatever your conception of reality is, you are wrong. That isn’t It. That is a belief, not the Absolute, not the Totality. Yeah, I’m overusing Capitalization to indicate the Real. So what?
Just don’t confuse belief for Truth, and you’ll be alright.
The issue put forth had nothing to do with your definition of reality. Neither was it postulated just to give you the opportunity to try and impress your friends in the shallow end of the kiddie pool. If you want to play in the big league my friend I have a couple suggestions for you.
First of all, make sure your replies actually address the issue at hand. Second, make sure you know what the hell you’re talking about before you start throwing around phrases like “in the original meaning”.
Now. If you care to debate the actual issue which was the danger of religious zealots in positions of power and influence, I gladly welcome your input. Otherwise, please go bother somebody else.
Seth is an intelligent person with worthwhile contributions to make. If you’d bothered to look any deeper into what he was saying, you’d have seen he was pointing out that religion is at heart a noble enterprise exploited by those with few scruples into the kind of thing you talk about.
So maybe the issue has less to do with religous people in power and more to do with unscrupulous, or weak-minded, people in power. And no, the two are not synonymous, there’s just a whole lot of unfortunate correlation.
Yeah, I was really surprised to see Seth treated like some trollish n00b there. Seth is one of the good guys. I usually enjoy reading his posts.
Zealots can be dangerous. Apathetic people can be dangerous. That’s because /people/ can be dangerous.
I do not believe that a group of people who believe that there is eventually an end to things is more dangerous than one that does not. Yes, in theory it sounds true – given your proposed statements (i’d argue that what you said is not what every Christian believes OR the idea behind Christianity but since there are many denominations and we’re talking about the woman in this post who does have a particularly warped view of it your idea is at least worth its weight in sayin’). But in theory? A group of people who believe that they are accountable for their actions on an ongoing/eternal basis would be more responsible /in/ their actions. Theoretically? That’s the point, and part of the idea. In reality? It doesn’t work out that way.
So – yeah. Overarching beliefs
Ugh – didn’t realize I got cut off.
I was just going to say that overarching beliefs are not always played out in day to day actions. And someone who is following more traditional (IE: biblical, mainline, etc) Christianity is no more likely to blow up the world than perhaps someone who has a different belief system. Insanity is in the person. Not the faith system.
FINALLY! Someone in this thread who actually has something intelligent to say. Thank you! In regards to your statement “insanity is in the person. Not in the belief system.” I submit that any belief system which teaches it’s adherents that they are “not part of this world” and which separates people into categories of worthy and unworthy, ultimately pitting them against each other in an apocalyptic, world ending war is itself the epitome of insanity. Policy makers who harbor these beliefs cannot help but have their decisions influenced by them. As an atheist I am more than a little uncomfortable with policies which effect my life as well as the future of the planet being influenced by this kind of extremely dangerous religious elitism.
Thank you for the compliment – assuming it was meant for me! If not, I apologize for the assumption. I’ll be honest. I hate debate. I hate it because too often people get upset and start attacking each other. So – I try to stick with the basic things that I think we can all agree on and explain my view point from there.
So, given that? It’s my instinct to be systematic in answering your post with my opinion/take. However, I’ve been drafting it out and realize it becomes /very/ long and comes across a little potentially preachy. And that wouldn’t be my goal in answering at all – however, to explain what I have understood as the Christian Faith does mean going into the Christian Faith in some detail, so I’m not sure how to avoid that.
My answer to that dilemna?
I’m going to hold back on providing the ‘footnotes’ version and try to summarize. Let me know if you want the full break down later.
First? I think you are absolutely right.
A faith like you described “seperating people into worthy and unworthy, pitting them against each other in an apocalyptic world-ending war” would be absolutely mad. That sounds horrifying to me and I’d be rather worried about world leaders who believed that as well!
I also agree that women like the one we’ve been discussing very likely do have a faith that breaks down into that sort of description. I can’t say that for certain cause I didn’t watch the show on her but it does fit what I’ve been told.
However? I have got to say that that is definitely not the Christianity I’m familiar with (insert credentials of where I’ve gone to church/been/studied etc here) and I don’t think it is the type that is mainline Christianity. In fact, it is nearly a polar opposite (insert biblical references, etc, explainations to nail down mainline Christianity).
So – I think we agree on the general here. I think that the differences come in what we believe is the common/general/accepted form of Christianity, how many people follow the type that worries us both, and what the intent behind the faith is versus how it is worked out. Does that sound accurate?
Yes Tali, the compliment was meant for you. You are one of only three people I have met here who I actually have any respect for. While I do not share your faith I think we have reached some common ground here so this is probably a good place to end our discussion. Unfortunately, I have to leave for a while, as I just finished explaining to Emperor. If you don’t mind I will just copy and paste what I told him so as not to have to type it all over again.
I’m afraid I’m going to have to take an indefinite hiatus. My band is going into the studio starting Wednesday to begin recording our second CD. This translates into months of grueling, intense work. Leaving little or no time for anything else. Despite what people may think, recording is really not very much fun.
I may drop by occasionally and throw out a “teaser” just to stir the pot (I’m kind of evil that way) but I’m afraid I won’t be able to commit to any extended debating for a while.
Before you breathe a heavy sigh of relief at the thought of getting rid of me, rest assured, I fully intend to return once this recording gig wraps up. If you’re still around maybe we can pick up where we left off.
take care
Stephen
No problem with copying and pasting – one of the great inventions of all time in my opinion. Again – thanks for the compliment. I appreciate it. And, I think some common ground reached is a good place to end a discussion. Good luck on your second CD. I hope the grueling months go by quickly for you.
I hope you have a great day.
HAHAH. I clicked the link to read Becky Fischer’s Wikipedia article, and the NAME OF MY HOMETOWN jumped out at me as a place to which she moved and expanded her “ministry.” Wow. I have NEVER heard of her.
@NObama
Come back when you’ve reached the age to develop abstract thought (at least a year or two) and then debate religious matters. As it is, you do not know enough about what you speak, nor do you recognize what others are saying. You are just a child, and you should be out looking at bugs, playing with friends and having fun, not arguing over these sorts of things.
If they’re old enough to argue I say let em argue *shrugs*. Age doesn’t make you intelligent, nor does it always make you mature. Saying someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about leaves you open to criticism about what you think. In your bubble of thinking one just MIGHT not get the whole picture, so it’s safer to assume you don’t.
not even going to disclose my own age here, ;p
Well then let me rephrase it – she’s not old enough to argue it well, nor is she old enough to understand different points of view. Every child is pretty self-centered until the age of abstraction, at which point they develop the ability to see from another’s point of view. Until then, there is no point in debating anything.
She is debating in children’s religious terms – absolute, because that’s the only capacity children can understand religion in.
I’m not using it as a slight against her; I’m saying that she’s just not at the point where she can really recognize what she’s saying and think on her own instead of parroting what she’s learned. It’s the same case as a child coming into school and saying “my daddy said the sky is blue because God painted it!” and a teacher trying to correct them… they’re not going to get very far, right?
after getting entangled in far too many debates and going through too many posts, all I can say is that this person is an idiot for opening up such a can of worms.
Even if you’re a Christian like this person claims to be, you’re going to argue, because, like the caption somewhat truly says, our interpretation of what God wants us to do is getting too entangled with what the majority says is “okay”.
My new favorite quote to describe our predicament is, “In the beginning, God made man in his image, and ever since, we have been trying to return the favor”.
i never herd of this women before but after reading some coments about her and jesus camp i relized how horible of a person she was, this is just my opinion but i hope she gets locked up somewher she cant brainwash children (by the way im an athiest and im proud of it)
Chill out, everybody, she`s just still not over Jesus standing her up. I can`t find anything on her being married or having any children of her own.