Dave, I don't want to spin this topic out of balance here, but ... Yes, religion itself is a pain. But we can't say that that and exempt any specific group. I understand the difference between the two in your context, but I still need to check in on it. Somewhere in my library I have a copy of Weber's "Christianity and the Rise of Capitalism," which essentially demonstrates that only something as strange and ill-conceived as the Church of England could possibly spawn such a vicious progeny as the link between Christianity and American capitalism. In the US, there's not really any problem like we hear about on the news, insofar as sects and splinter groups are concerned. But we currently live under federal laws that encourage a further consolidation of wealth in a smaller segment of society. Religious and economic conservatism go almost hand in hand among the fifty states. So I agree, we don't often hear of Koresh-type groups through most of the first-tier Christian world. But sentiments concerning expression, crime and punishment, medicine, and economy itself--all inspired by alleged faith (how faithful can most be if faith is indoctrinated from birth with no acceptable alternative?)--encourage those conditions which Christians consider ungodly. (e. g.--Build more prisons, tighten up sentences, undermine the criminal defense mechanism, arm the population. These are the "economic" solutions which US conservatism offers for our crime problem. Dollars for education? It's bad for the economy, since we can "invest" that money in something that will bring us "fiscal growth".) I don't want to single out Christians for hostility in general. It's just that when I'm hostile toward churches, it's usually a Christian church that incited it. But they're no different than every other "Church" religion, damaging and wrong. For instance, I'm 26. As an adult, I can "choose", as such, to be racist. I can also "choose" to follow a religion, and in that, I can "choose" to advocate bad ideas. I guess I would like to turn your question back to you: How many Muslim, Sikh, or otherwise, routinely advocate codified discrimination through the ballot box? How many Muslim, Sikh, Buddhist, Satanist, or what-have-you routinely ask school boards to remove books? In 1982, Twisted Sister's "Under the Blade" album was actually banned from sale in the States by an act of US Congress, because it offended some people's religious sensibilities. (Incidentally, the cause was two occasions of the word "sh_t" and the use of the phrase "shoot them down with the f_cking gun".) Wrong is still wrong, whether you use the ballot box to enforce the Three-fifths rule, or a rifle to advance your godhead. Christians don't behave themselves. Irish history, whether six centuries' worth or merely the last four decades, demonstrates that Christians do not behave themselves. I'm not referring to mad bombers like the abortion clinic murderers in the US. (Incidentally, the guy who shot Dr. Gunn a few years back did work at an outreach center and had been in a prayer group shortly beforehand.) I'll sum up here 'cause I'm running longer than I intended. We seem to single out Christianity in this group, though it's probably a common association. If Pat Robertson says something dumb, it doesn't make the Satanic Church look bad. So we pick on the Christians either because we believe they deserve it, or else it's the Least Common Denominator, as such. We could argue about Yasser Arafat, I suppose, but I don't know enough Muslim history or faith to approach the subject in depth. But in being aware of our singling out of Christianity, we must also take care not to excuse it exclusively. The best reason I know to perceive threat in Christianity is that its people so regularly exercise their liberty to attempt to counteract liberty itself. But the perception of behavior in that context is entirely subjective. thx, Tiassa ------------------ "Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock) [This message has been edited by tiassa (edited August 21, 1999).] [This message has been edited by tiassa (edited August 21, 1999).]
I can understand the concept of a single god, therefore I can understand that with this one god comes one religion and it is christianity that follows this religion. All other religions are false as prophesised in the book of revelation, the harlot being this tower of false religion, I think. If revelation is anything to go by then this false religion will be disposed of by this one god and christianity will reign over the earth. Nice story if god existed! But as far as vision goes with the bible, it is still read out of context with twisted sight. What you read is what you see not what you make it out to be to justify the existance of a god.
I'm sorry, but I just have to reply to something Dave said about religion being a pain while Christians aren't. Have you ever heard of the Inquisition? What about what the good little priests did to the Native Americans, the Aztecs, and every other culture they've come across in history? Have you ever been to Northern Ireland? No? What about Salem, Massachusetts (sp?)? Didn't the Pope Innocent the something-or-other himself coin the phrase "Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out."? And why did the Catholic Church sit by and watch the Jews go to slaughter in Nazi Germany? The Vatican was more than in position to help, but the Nazis were paying their tithes. What about the heretics, countless may of them, who have been burned at the stake, drawn and quartered, crushed, and trampled, all in the name of god? Many of these people were innocent old women who committed the deadly sin of living alone. I know the argument. That was man acting, not god. But the fact is that these were Christians, the very people who gaily sit around and chant about loving their fellow man while tying old women to ducking stools or else setting fire to buildings full of people who don't worship the same god in the same way. I have probably offended a few of you, but I feel very strongly on the matter. I make no apologies. I even brought the nails for my own crucifixion.
Religion has a good way of twisting the facts. 'Thou shalt not kill' really means 'Kill everyone whos wierd and disagrees with god' Maybe the bible should be re-written in a language we can all understand.
NO GENERAL, Thou shalt not kill means thou shalt not kill, period. And may I say to you all for the gazillionth time, CHRISTIANS AREN'T PERFECT!!!! THEY ARE NO BETTER, NO, NOT ONE LITTLE BIT, THAN ANYONE ELSE. THAT IS THE WHOLE FRICKIN' MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE!!!! THEY MAKE MISTAKES, THEY SIN, THEY ARE EGOTISTICAL, THEY ARE VIOLENT. JUST LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE, THERE ARE GOOD CHRISTIANS AND BAD. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT WE'RE BRINGING UP ALL OF THE BAD THINGS THAT CHRISTIAN MEN HAVE DONE. DO YOU HONESTLY THINK THAT GOD IS PLEASED ABOUT THE FRICKIN' SPANISH INQUISITION????? GIVE ME A BREAK!!! MISGUIDED AND POWER-HUNGRY, JUDGEMENTAL CHRISTIANS WILL HAVE THEIR PRICE TO PAY AS WELL. BUT LISTEN!!!! DON'T THROW THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATHWATER! THE FACT THAT ALL CHRISTIANS ARE SINNERS IS NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE, FOR THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE BIBLE TELLS US ABOUT ALL OF OURSELVES! AH, ACCURATE AS USUAL. ------------------ God loves you and so do I!
Oh yes yes yes, you go girl! And now, if Christians are all as bad as the rest of us, I think I ought to bring up a point I made a looong time ago. <u>What is the usefullness of religion to the human race?</u> How does religion improve our condition? Does it really benefit us, or is it merely a pretext for the usual savagery and mob insanity, only this time organized and channelled with a mind-numbing determination? Would we not be better off as a civilization <u>without</u> any cults or religions, and with nothing but reason to guide us??! ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited August 26, 1999).]
Lori, I have never said that christains were not perfect! I have stated teh bible is not perfect!!!!!!!!! I tell you what...if you can explain why there are tons of contradictions in the bible...other than Isdaman's thoughts..than I will listen. Yes, THEN I will listen!! Thing is...you KNOW deep down inside you cannot... why do you think that is???? SINCERELY, Flash ------------------
Flash, Where are my examples? I've asked you twice now for three detailed claims of imperfection. I e-mailed you for the list of 100. There has been no response save complaints from you that I'm not doing things the way you want. I've also noticed that you have begun to single out Lori. Flash, if you are so strong in your faith that there is no faith to be had other than science or what ever it is that you place your faith in ( It's in something!!! ), try picking on me. Forget Lori. I'm calling you out! I doubt that you have ever read the Bible cover to cover even once. I doubt that you have ever even done any research on any alleged Bible contradictions. You are simply rehashing the same old lies that have been fed to you. Somehow, you seem to think that pushing around others makes you STRONG. I wonder how soft you are face to face,... you and all your talk of weakness!!!! You have no clue what true strength is. True strength is allowing yourself to be nailed to a cross to pay for someone else's sins. True strength is standing up and professing your faith in the midst of a world that mocks and scorns you. Flash, prove me wrong!!!!!!!!!! ------------------ Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online.
boris, many do not have a sense of religion, many choose this. it does not mean that religious practice is without benefit. if an individual creates a ceremony with a goal/virtue in mind, it is an act to stimulate perspectives. when one says that all are not perfect, some who choose to 'practice' are (on their own terms) seeking the ability to recognize the value of virtue. when one says that religion is not needed, one fails to recognize the diversity of our population. this does not hail jihad debates. as u have stated a looong time ago, so have i - that we are individual by association in correlation to our capacity. one can be emotionally more mature, but less intellectually so , and vice versa.we are heterogeneous in nature. you see things your way on your terms, we all have our bias as defined by our sense of structure; it does not mean that this sense is correct. this is something that can be derived from religion, that a sense of Spirituality can enable one to recognize the whole of another and therefore empathize with their position. however if one believes that there is no soul, then one can not recognize the nature of Spirituality, then one does not understand what i have said, ah well it may be good for others.
bedlanam: And I claim that one can perfectly well empathize with no need for the concept of 'soul'. And no need for the concept of God, and no need for the concept of 'afterlife', and no need for any mythology associated with those three. And without those things, one can still perfectly well pursue virtues, engage in symbolic ceremonies, and perceive the mysteriousness of existence. Religion does not enable any of the things you mentioned; rather it is an extraneous baggage we could all well do without. The only things religion specifically enables are fanaticism, and all of its associated vices. ------------------ I am; therefore I think.
boris, many do not have a sense of religion, many choose this, this is your choice. i can not change this, it is your will. i am not trying to change this, this is why i stated that you would not understand as still you do not. i did not post that for you, it was for others. however, i would like to ask - if something could convince u that you did have a soul, what would that be, what would it take ? if there is a proof that u could not deny, what would you 'require' it to be ?
bedlanam: I honestly do not know what it would be. But it would have to be something that clearly cannot be explained in any other way than via existence of a soul. Perhaps, no such proof could ever exist -- which would not be coincidental, since such things as the existence of God or soul are intentionally not grounded in reality. However, there is plenty of evidence to point to just the opposite conclusion: that everything about us is explainable with no need for a soul. And that evidence is growing every day. Eventually, it ought to become so complete and all-encompassing that it should be obvious to anyone that there is no such thing as a soul, just as today it is plainly obvious that Earth is not flat. ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited August 29, 1999).]
Boris, Do you believe in astral travel, astral projection, out of body experiences, ghosts, spectral anomalies, poltergiests or any of that kind of stuff that may rate about a nine on the wierd-o-meter?? Regards, Dave.
Dave: I believe there's something to these phenomena (with the exception of out-of-body or 'astral' stuff -- which sound like they are explainable through mere neurophysiology.) However, I do not think that just because we cannot reliably reproduce these phenomena or explain them using current scientific knowledge, that supernatural forces must be involved. Before I (or any other scientist) can cast a real opinion on those issues, they must become readily demonstrable and reproducible, so that they can be put under empirical scrutiny. ------------------ I am; therefore I think. [This message has been edited by Boris (edited August 30, 1999).]
boris , if there is a proof that u could not deny, what would you 'require' it to be ? what if u had an 'experience' ? rather than pass off the question, answer it.
Flash, My answer to you regarding discrepancies would have to be this...it's close enough for me! There is NO DOUBT that you can get a "perfect" message from the Bible, regardless of incidental logistical discrepancies. I'm a big picture thinker, and I just don't see how these details are relevant. Another thing to consider is that there are many factors and circumstances which come into play, that you just can't ignore. You all would like to reduce the entire message of the Bible into some cut and dry textbook lesson, and it's just not that simple, and you're just going to have to get a grip on that. I mean, divinely inspired, written by men, interpreted by men, and then even further, analogies and "parables" interpreted by YOU. Not to mention the influence of Christ, between the lessons in the Old and New Testament. You keep saying that no one is responding to your concerns over contradictions, but many are. What we're saying is that you are not seeing the forest through the trees. You are focusing your valuable attention on incidentals. I mean, what exactly do you want me to say, that I was there, and this is how it "really" went? Boris asks what the "purpose" of religion is, and I like debating this question. I was just speaking with one of my girl friends about this the other night, and we went round and round. I think that the purpose of religion, or the benefit of it, would be to direct one's intentions. One's actions or behaviour would certainly be affected, but indirectly through one's intentions. Because God looks at what's going on in your "heart" (meaning your intentions). She says what she can't get over is that a serial killer can be "saved" and forgiven, yet someone like her, who is a nice person and doesn't try to hurt people are damned to hell because they aren't necessarily saved. My question to her was, why are you a nice person who doesn't try to hurt people? She kept saying because it's the right thing to do. I asked, but why is it right? It just is. But why is it? My philosophy is that if there is no God, then why be good? If you are going to accept theories of evolution and science and survival of the fittest and whatnot in place of God, then why not just screw everyone over to get what you want? Why not kill someone? Why not steal? Why is it wrong? Survival of the fittest right? And to varying degrees, people do use this arguement when rationalizing decisions in their lives. Like sex for example. Is it a gift from God for purposes of procreation, or is it a biological function that happens to feel good, that we are free to manipulate the hell out of for our own selfish interests? Are you people aware that our constitution was based upon Christian principles? Why is that? I like to say that I don't live my life according to the laws of man, but according to the laws of God. It just so happens that because our founding fathers were Christians, that there is some congruency between the two. As our society has aged though, we keep rationalizing our laws to circumvent those founding principles, or to say that they really weren't founded in relation to God's laws, but to propagate proper sociological relationships. There are things that we ALL do, whether Christian or not, that we can not attribute to societal laws. That saying "it's just the right thing to do". WHY??????????????????????? ------------------ God loves you and so do I!
Lori, I did not say anyone was not replying to my post...what I said that they were not doing so directly...why the hell do you think I told you the story of the steak and dog shit??? To show you that details are important!! Right and wrong are taught... pure and simple...it is learned!!!
Lori, One of Gods Laws is to obey the Peoples Law. So in effect you are and have to live by rules made by Man......bummer, huh?!! XXX
Lori, I think you are pinning down evolution a bit to much on the term "Survival of the fittest". A better way of putting it would be "Survival of the best adapted to the ever changing surroundings". You see evolution doesn't occur only on the biological level, everything that is subject to changing environments tries to adapt to it to the best of its abilities. Everything from languages, our own ideas and concepts, morals and yes even religions ! The trouble we have here is thousands of years ago there was no clear distinction between morals, philosophy, physics, chemestry, biology, geology, math, psychology, the organisation of society and religion. This was because man was just beginning to organise his surroundings in order to understand it. This has EVOLVED and gradually people began to specialise and distinct disciplines began to form, science began to emerge. This had the advantage that far more progress could be made into specific fields but had as disadvantage that people began to lose the big picture ! We have come to a time where the disciplines have grown so far away from each other that people have lost all sense of touch with their place in it all. You see, one can have morals without having to believe in a God who made and imposed them. Also the reverse is possible I'm afraid, just think back at the Texas, Wacko incident. Morals, as Boris has several times pointed out, are in essence found in any herd-animal society. They are just the best way to survive and pass your genes on to the gene pool. There is nothing demistifying to this notion, on the contrary. It shows a connection between us and other animals, it re-establishes our lost place, it seels the gap between the disciplines. ------------------ "If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants." Isaac Newton
Dave, I realize that of course, and that is why I do follow the laws of man, and the only reason. ------------------ God loves you and so do I!
