rshoemake Posted: Feb 1 2006, 08:54 PM
QUOTE
TtG:
There is simply too much to address that you've said in prior posts in the time that I have available to me, but I'd like to at least address your last post.
QUOTE
You are explaining how there can be a few bad fruits within Christianity. I do not see this as the modern or historical reality. Now, I am separating the church from “The way,” I have no complaints about “the way.” If there is any good to the church, there should be at least a slightly higher prevalence of good actions as compared to the human population in general. This does not seem to be the case. I would even go as far to say that the church is inherently evil. How else can you explain teaching someone how to love thy neighbor and at the same time convince them to perform such horrendous acts?
With all respect it seems that your really going out on a limb here suggesting that "the church" is evil.
1) You're lumping all people who call themselves Christians into one big bucket. Keep in mind that even the New Testament warns us about "wolves in sheeps clothing". If there are those who act unChrist-like they are by definition (as you've said and I've said before ) more probably not christian in the first place (no matter what they call themselves). Even cults often call themselves Christians.
2) Do you know how much money is donated by Christian organizations to help children in the Third World? How many hospitals have been created by Christian groups around the world? There is also quite a bit done for homeless people and the less fortunate (in terms of shelters, food kitchens, clothing drives, christmas toy drives, etc).
3) What horrendous acts are you refering to? The crusades? That was done by what Protestants would consider unbelievers (from a Biblical definition)
4) Sadly, for you to suggest that Christian/church people are evil is nothing short of pure ignorance. I doubt that you even know anyone who goes to church do you? Evil speaks to a persons motives, and I've found some of the nicest people you'd ever hope to meet at church. Sure, there have been some jerks, etc. However, the church welcomes everyone to come as they are. It doesnt say "before you come in here you must be a nice person with no baggage and must have good social skills". In fact, it's very often the ones with poor social skills, baggage, etc. who have been driven to go to church because noone else will except them.
QUOTE
The overwhelming majority of the Christian voting block supported the war. Now I am not saying that peace is always the answer, but if you choose to follow Jesus’ teachings, you choose to follow Jesus’ teachings. How could the overwhelming majority of Christians support something that is in direct conflict with Jesus’ teachings, if it wasn’t for the fact that the Church doesn’t teach Jesus’ teachings? I also see this as evidence that the overwhelming majority of Christians have never read the Bible. If you choose to devote your life to a religion, and you truly believe that this is the correct religion, how can you not even read the instruction manual? I read the Bible as a religious young man, and then later as a skeptic and enjoyed the amount of knowledge and good will that it contained, but more importantly I walked away confused by the total separation between what Jesus taught and how Christians act.
As you said, peace is not always the answer. Did Jesus ever teach on how a nation should respond to an act of terrorism? I will tell you He did not directly address that. However, since you've read the Bible then you are aware that there are instances where God calls Israel to go to war. Therefore, there is a time and place for war though it's only intended only for a just cause. Whether you consider this war just or not is a matter of opinion, and rational people can exist on both sides of the issue.
QUOTE
If you believe in the Christian church you must believe that it is the closest thing to good the world has. Any other possibility seems to defy logic, and what I had always presumed to be the purpose of the church, to spread “good.” The church has utterly failed in this. The most prominent figure in the Christian community is Pat Robertson, his rhetoric and actions seem to be exactly the opposite of Jesus’ teachings, yet he has a very strong following. The issues with the Christian church are not a few bad seeds, but an overwhelming prevalence of what Jesus would consider evil.
I disagree. The church is doing a lot of good. Perhaps your simply not aware of it. If you are truly interested in finding out about this I challenge you to listen to christian media (whether on tv or radio) and look for the many times that donations are requested for this charity or that.
I will agree that the American church has NOT done enough in this regard. Often the allure of materialism is very seductive and Christian people are subject to temptation the same as everyone else. We can do a lot more. However, there has been tremendous outpouring of help, aid and support to Katrina victims (by churches) and the tsunami victims.
Granted Pat Roberson has not been a good representative as of late. I think his days are numbered as leader because I don't think many main stream Christians agreed with what he had to say. However, his organization has also done a lot of good which to be fair he does deserve credit for that.
So, bottom line here is that Church != evil (means not equal) though I'm sure some evil does exist there. It's not perfect after all. (and by church I"m refering to Protestant organizations). Additionally, your assertion that the church=evil I find a bit extreme and unfoprtunately without merit.
I dont know your personal religious background, but I suspect that you've had some very bad experiences which have tainted your view. If that is the case, I'm sorry that you had to go through that. I hope that you can receive healing for any of those bad experiences if indeed they did occur. I'm sure you'll become a stronger person as a result.
Respectfully
There is simply too much to address that you've said in prior posts in the time that I have available to me, but I'd like to at least address your last post.
QUOTE
You are explaining how there can be a few bad fruits within Christianity. I do not see this as the modern or historical reality. Now, I am separating the church from “The way,” I have no complaints about “the way.” If there is any good to the church, there should be at least a slightly higher prevalence of good actions as compared to the human population in general. This does not seem to be the case. I would even go as far to say that the church is inherently evil. How else can you explain teaching someone how to love thy neighbor and at the same time convince them to perform such horrendous acts?
With all respect it seems that your really going out on a limb here suggesting that "the church" is evil.
1) You're lumping all people who call themselves Christians into one big bucket. Keep in mind that even the New Testament warns us about "wolves in sheeps clothing". If there are those who act unChrist-like they are by definition (as you've said and I've said before ) more probably not christian in the first place (no matter what they call themselves). Even cults often call themselves Christians.
2) Do you know how much money is donated by Christian organizations to help children in the Third World? How many hospitals have been created by Christian groups around the world? There is also quite a bit done for homeless people and the less fortunate (in terms of shelters, food kitchens, clothing drives, christmas toy drives, etc).
3) What horrendous acts are you refering to? The crusades? That was done by what Protestants would consider unbelievers (from a Biblical definition)
4) Sadly, for you to suggest that Christian/church people are evil is nothing short of pure ignorance. I doubt that you even know anyone who goes to church do you? Evil speaks to a persons motives, and I've found some of the nicest people you'd ever hope to meet at church. Sure, there have been some jerks, etc. However, the church welcomes everyone to come as they are. It doesnt say "before you come in here you must be a nice person with no baggage and must have good social skills". In fact, it's very often the ones with poor social skills, baggage, etc. who have been driven to go to church because noone else will except them.
QUOTE
The overwhelming majority of the Christian voting block supported the war. Now I am not saying that peace is always the answer, but if you choose to follow Jesus’ teachings, you choose to follow Jesus’ teachings. How could the overwhelming majority of Christians support something that is in direct conflict with Jesus’ teachings, if it wasn’t for the fact that the Church doesn’t teach Jesus’ teachings? I also see this as evidence that the overwhelming majority of Christians have never read the Bible. If you choose to devote your life to a religion, and you truly believe that this is the correct religion, how can you not even read the instruction manual? I read the Bible as a religious young man, and then later as a skeptic and enjoyed the amount of knowledge and good will that it contained, but more importantly I walked away confused by the total separation between what Jesus taught and how Christians act.
As you said, peace is not always the answer. Did Jesus ever teach on how a nation should respond to an act of terrorism? I will tell you He did not directly address that. However, since you've read the Bible then you are aware that there are instances where God calls Israel to go to war. Therefore, there is a time and place for war though it's only intended only for a just cause. Whether you consider this war just or not is a matter of opinion, and rational people can exist on both sides of the issue.
QUOTE
If you believe in the Christian church you must believe that it is the closest thing to good the world has. Any other possibility seems to defy logic, and what I had always presumed to be the purpose of the church, to spread “good.” The church has utterly failed in this. The most prominent figure in the Christian community is Pat Robertson, his rhetoric and actions seem to be exactly the opposite of Jesus’ teachings, yet he has a very strong following. The issues with the Christian church are not a few bad seeds, but an overwhelming prevalence of what Jesus would consider evil.
I disagree. The church is doing a lot of good. Perhaps your simply not aware of it. If you are truly interested in finding out about this I challenge you to listen to christian media (whether on tv or radio) and look for the many times that donations are requested for this charity or that.
I will agree that the American church has NOT done enough in this regard. Often the allure of materialism is very seductive and Christian people are subject to temptation the same as everyone else. We can do a lot more. However, there has been tremendous outpouring of help, aid and support to Katrina victims (by churches) and the tsunami victims.
Granted Pat Roberson has not been a good representative as of late. I think his days are numbered as leader because I don't think many main stream Christians agreed with what he had to say. However, his organization has also done a lot of good which to be fair he does deserve credit for that.
So, bottom line here is that Church != evil (means not equal) though I'm sure some evil does exist there. It's not perfect after all. (and by church I"m refering to Protestant organizations). Additionally, your assertion that the church=evil I find a bit extreme and unfoprtunately without merit.
I dont know your personal religious background, but I suspect that you've had some very bad experiences which have tainted your view. If that is the case, I'm sorry that you had to go through that. I hope that you can receive healing for any of those bad experiences if indeed they did occur. I'm sure you'll become a stronger person as a result.
Respectfully
Insyght Posted: Feb 1 2006, 09:23 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| TtG: There is simply too much to address that you've said in prior posts in the time that I have available to me, but I'd like to at least address your last post. QUOTE You are explaining how there can be a few bad fruits within Christianity. I do not see this as the modern or historical reality. Now, I am separating the church from “The way,” I have no complaints about “the way.” If there is any good to the church, there should be at least a slightly higher prevalence of good actions as compared to the human population in general. This does not seem to be the case. I would even go as far to say that the church is inherently evil. How else can you explain teaching someone how to love thy neighbor and at the same time convince them to perform such horrendous acts? With all respect it seems that your really going out on a limb here suggesting that "the church" is evil. 1) You're lumping all people who call themselves Christians into one big bucket. Keep in mind that even the New Testament warns us about "wolves in sheeps clothing". If there are those who act unChrist-like they are by definition (as you've said and I've said before ) more probably not christian in the first place (no matter what they call themselves). Even cults often call themselves Christians. 2) Do you know how much money is donated by Christian organizations to help children in the Third World? How many hospitals have been created by Christian groups around the world? There is also quite a bit done for homeless people and the less fortunate (in terms of shelters, food kitchens, clothing drives, christmas toy drives, etc). 3) What horrendous acts are you refering to? The crusades? That was done by what Protestants would consider unbelievers (from a Biblical definition) 4) Sadly, for you to suggest that Christian/church people are evil is nothing short of pure ignorance. I doubt that you even know anyone who goes to church do you? Evil speaks to a persons motives, and I've found some of the nicest people you'd ever hope to meet at church. Sure, there have been some jerks, etc. However, the church welcomes everyone to come as they are. It doesnt say "before you come in here you must be a nice person with no baggage and must have good social skills". In fact, it's very often the ones with poor social skills, baggage, etc. who have been driven to go to church because noone else will except them. QUOTE The overwhelming majority of the Christian voting block supported the war. Now I am not saying that peace is always the answer, but if you choose to follow Jesus’ teachings, you choose to follow Jesus’ teachings. How could the overwhelming majority of Christians support something that is in direct conflict with Jesus’ teachings, if it wasn’t for the fact that the Church doesn’t teach Jesus’ teachings? I also see this as evidence that the overwhelming majority of Christians have never read the Bible. If you choose to devote your life to a religion, and you truly believe that this is the correct religion, how can you not even read the instruction manual? I read the Bible as a religious young man, and then later as a skeptic and enjoyed the amount of knowledge and good will that it contained, but more importantly I walked away confused by the total separation between what Jesus taught and how Christians act. As you said, peace is not always the answer. Did Jesus ever teach on how a nation should respond to an act of terrorism? I will tell you He did not directly address that. However, since you've read the Bible then you are aware that there are instances where God calls Israel to go to war. Therefore, there is a time and place for war though it's only intended only for a just cause. Whether you consider this war just or not is a matter of opinion, and rational people can exist on both sides of the issue. QUOTE If you believe in the Christian church you must believe that it is the closest thing to good the world has. Any other possibility seems to defy logic, and what I had always presumed to be the purpose of the church, to spread “good.” The church has utterly failed in this. The most prominent figure in the Christian community is Pat Robertson, his rhetoric and actions seem to be exactly the opposite of Jesus’ teachings, yet he has a very strong following. The issues with the Christian church are not a few bad seeds, but an overwhelming prevalence of what Jesus would consider evil. I disagree. The church is doing a lot of good. Perhaps your simply not aware of it. If you are truly interested in finding out about this I challenge you to listen to christian media (whether on tv or radio) and look for the many times that donations are requested for this charity or that. I will agree that the American church has NOT done enough in this regard. Often the allure of materialism is very seductive and Christian people are subject to temptation the same as everyone else. We can do a lot more. However, there has been tremendous outpouring of help, aid and support to Katrina victims (by churches) and the tsunami victims. Granted Pat Roberson has not been a good representative as of late. I think his days are numbered as leader because I don't think many main stream Christians agreed with what he had to say. However, his organization has also done a lot of good which to be fair he does deserve credit for that. So, bottom line here is that Church != evil (means not equal) though I'm sure some evil does exist there. It's not perfect after all. (and by church I"m refering to Protestant organizations). Additionally, your assertion that the church=evil I find a bit extreme and unfoprtunately without merit. I dont know your personal religious background, but I suspect that you've had some very bad experiences which have tainted your view. If that is the case, I'm sorry that you had to go through that. I hope that you can receive healing for any of those bad experiences if indeed they did occur. I'm sure you'll become a stronger person as a result. Respectfully |
Insyght Posted: Feb 1 2006, 09:23 PM
Wow, thats is exceptional.
Should Christians "vote" on backing anything? wether it be same sex marriage, abortion or war? Shouldn't Christians consult God's word?
Amazing logic shown. It's too bad that the majority of "Christians" cannot see this.
I'm going to get flamed for this, but the simple truth is, that the majority of religion as a whole simply is not living up to expectation and it will be removed ragardless of whether it thinks it is doing good or not.
Inter-faith prayers, praying over army being sent into battle, worshipping idols... The owness is on each of us to search for "the way".
Research it.
At least one faith exists with an internal policy (for use of a better word) of complete Neutrality from war + politics + worlds celebrations, holding Bible stance on abortion + same sex marriage enforced with expulsion.
rshoemake Posted: Feb 1 2006, 09:39 PM
QUOTE
Of course they should exercise vote. Everyone else has that right. In fact, they have a duty to do so.
In many cases Christians DO consult God's word, but not often enough.
All religons are made up of people. People are imperfect. Therefore, no religous group will live up to "expectation" from that standpoint.
I decided along time ago that I was going to find out what I believed was the true religion and it wasn't going to be based on whether or not some of the people in it weren't being obedient to it's tenets.
What are saying about "It will be removed"? What religous background are you coming from?
What faith you are promoting?
Anyway, it looks like this whole thing has gotten way off topic. ;-)
In many cases Christians DO consult God's word, but not often enough.
All religons are made up of people. People are imperfect. Therefore, no religous group will live up to "expectation" from that standpoint.
I decided along time ago that I was going to find out what I believed was the true religion and it wasn't going to be based on whether or not some of the people in it weren't being obedient to it's tenets.
What are saying about "It will be removed"? What religous background are you coming from?
What faith you are promoting?
Anyway, it looks like this whole thing has gotten way off topic. ;-)
Thomas the Gardener Posted: Feb 1 2006, 10:19 PM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Of course they should exercise vote. Everyone else has that right. In fact, they have a duty to do so. In many cases Christians DO consult God's word, but not often enough. All religons are made up of people. People are imperfect. Therefore, no religous group will live up to "expectation" from that standpoint. I decided along time ago that I was going to find out what I believed was the true religion and it wasn't going to be based on whether or not some of the people in it weren't being obedient to it's tenets. What are saying about "It will be removed"? What religous background are you coming from? What faith you are promoting? Anyway, it looks like this whole thing has gotten way off topic. ;-) |
Thomas the Gardener Posted: Feb 1 2006, 10:19 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Judaism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heresy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peopl...ned_as_heretics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia_by...atholic_priests
Here is a short list of evil actions by the church. To separate Protestants from Catholics only reduces the historical perspective, besides Protestantism is only a branch off of Catholicism. You use a translated version of the Catholic Bible, vice returning to any of the historical documents. But the Protestant history is also clouded with evil, such as the witch trials.
Giving food to third world countries is often only a superficial “good” thing. These actions give the distinct impression that you are buying conversion with food. These simplistic interferences with other countries often acts only to increase birth rates, increase the population, and therefore created more dependence and suffering. The noted exception is Christian Children’s Fund, which I do respect.
QUOTE
You're lumping all people who call themselves Christians into one big bucket. Keep in mind that even the New Testament warns us about "wolves in sheeps clothing". If there are those who act unChrist-like they are by definition (as you've said and I've said before ) more probably not christian in the first place (no matter what they call themselves).
I am sure that there are some very good people in prisons also; this does not justify the actions of all those in prison. Nor does it prevent the assumption by many people that prisoners, in general, are bad people. An outsider can only judge a group of people by the actions of the group. Yes, this is prejudice. But I am sure you do the very same thing to groups you are not a member of. I can not pretend to understand something I do not understand.
QUOTE
Sadly, for you to suggest that Christian/church people are evil is nothing short of pure ignorance.
Ignorance? If there is one thing I am not, it is ignorant of Christianities actions and history. How much do you know of the history of your religion? Who wrote the Bible? Why did they write the Bible? Here’s a quick history lesson:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nag_Hammadi_library
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_criticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoroastrianism the origin of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions
QUOTE
As you said, peace is not always the answer. Did Jesus ever teach on how a nation should respond to an act of terrorism? I will tell you He did not directly address that. However, since you've read the Bible then you are aware that there are instances where God calls Israel to go to war. Therefore, there is a time and place for war though it's only intended only for a just cause. Whether you consider this war just or not is a matter of opinion, and rational people can exist on both sides of the issue.
Any scholar of the Bible can see that there are two gods within. One of the Old Testament, a wrathful vengeful god; and a God of the New Testament, love. If you are Christian then you believe in the supremacy of the New Testament over the old, otherwise you were a veil and eat kosher and not be able to go to church during that time of the month:
“And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.”
Have you ever read Leviticus? Christians often quote the Old Testament to prove points on what people should and should not do, but they pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament to follow. But according the the New Testament:
QUOTE
But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Matthew 5:39
QUOTE
And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also
Luke 6:29
How does this not apply to a country? My personal background in the church has opened my eyes. But, soon you will dismiss me as evil or say only that you can’t explain it, you only believe.
Insyght Posted: Feb 2 2006, 04:46 AM
QUOTE
QUOTE
Have you ever read Leviticus? Christians often quote the Old Testament to prove points on what people should and should not do, but they pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament to follow.
Some do. Those who hold to the sabath for example, they do not perform animal sacrafice. Thats contradiction. Reality is that the greek scriptures shows that Christ essentially nailed the old law to the stake - did away with it when he was crucified... can look up the reference if you are interested in it. Thus, even the 10 commandments passed again.
However, principles remained and carried to the law of the Christ.
The reason for God appearing as a God of war in Hebrew Text and God of Love in Greek text is more complex, involved background of the nations, their history, family lines and a concept that God was PHYSICALLY with then at that time. If you lived at that time, you would have had physical, scientic proof. What excuse is there for unfaithfulness. Add to that, that the sacrefice of Christ, resulting in him becoming a mediator - pleading on our behalf. This is extensive to explain. It's really beyond this descussion.
No not evil. Everything you are raising is valid and needs answers.
Have you ever read Leviticus? Christians often quote the Old Testament to prove points on what people should and should not do, but they pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament to follow.
Some do. Those who hold to the sabath for example, they do not perform animal sacrafice. Thats contradiction. Reality is that the greek scriptures shows that Christ essentially nailed the old law to the stake - did away with it when he was crucified... can look up the reference if you are interested in it. Thus, even the 10 commandments passed again.
However, principles remained and carried to the law of the Christ.
The reason for God appearing as a God of war in Hebrew Text and God of Love in Greek text is more complex, involved background of the nations, their history, family lines and a concept that God was PHYSICALLY with then at that time. If you lived at that time, you would have had physical, scientic proof. What excuse is there for unfaithfulness. Add to that, that the sacrefice of Christ, resulting in him becoming a mediator - pleading on our behalf. This is extensive to explain. It's really beyond this descussion.
No not evil. Everything you are raising is valid and needs answers.
rshoemake Posted: Feb 2 2006, 05:27 AM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE Have you ever read Leviticus? Christians often quote the Old Testament to prove points on what people should and should not do, but they pick and choose what parts of the Old Testament to follow. Some do. Those who hold to the sabath for example, they do not perform animal sacrafice. Thats contradiction. Reality is that the greek scriptures shows that Christ essentially nailed the old law to the stake - did away with it when he was crucified... can look up the reference if you are interested in it. Thus, even the 10 commandments passed again. However, principles remained and carried to the law of the Christ. The reason for God appearing as a God of war in Hebrew Text and God of Love in Greek text is more complex, involved background of the nations, their history, family lines and a concept that God was PHYSICALLY with then at that time. If you lived at that time, you would have had physical, scientic proof. What excuse is there for unfaithfulness. Add to that, that the sacrefice of Christ, resulting in him becoming a mediator - pleading on our behalf. This is extensive to explain. It's really beyond this descussion. No not evil. Everything you are raising is valid and needs answers. |
rshoemake Posted: Feb 2 2006, 05:27 AM
TtG:
You've once again said quite a bit. Alas, I'm hard pressed for time yet again, but would like to address all of your points (at some point).
It's clear that you've done some homework. However, let me correct you on just a few things if I may. First, if you look at the article whose link I sent you you'll notice that it does do a bit more than simply poke holes in Evolution. There is a section which in particular which talks about the odds of this biochemically coming together by itself. While this DOES poke a hole in evolution it simultaneously supports the idea that their must have been a God. In fact, many of evolutions "poked holes" has this same effect. In my mind, this is hard to avoid yet nonetheless does not diminish the value in terms of offering evidence for a Creator (which is all that it was intended to do).
Please do one thing though. Don't prejudge me based on your prior experience. I'm not going to say your "evil". I think that point has been made to the exhaustion of us all.
Also, don't stereotype me as someone who is just going to wave my hands, and say "I can't explain - I only believe". While in some cases that will be true, don't assume that that will be my answer to the majority of your arguments. You're arguments have taken some thought, and they deserve thoughful responses. I enjoy the intellectual challenge, and my faith is only reinforced by my research.
QUOTE
Here is a short list of evil actions by the church. To separate Protestants from Catholics only reduces the historical perspective, besides Protestantism is only a branch off of Catholicism. You use a translated version of the Catholic Bible, vice returning to any of the historical documents. But the Protestant history is also clouded with evil, such as the witch trials.
It reduces the historical perspective to be sure. However, it is perfetly valid to do so. The reason being that:
1) Protestants were not friends of the Catholic church - they were persecuted along side many others
2) Their beliefs were fundamentally different. Based on your research you should already be aware of this.
You can paint everyone in the faith with the same brush if you like. Perhaps it suits your purpose. However, as one who has gone to church for many years I can say beyond a doubt that most of the people there are good, decent people and no more evil than anyone else. In many cases, they are the cream of the crop in so much as they truly follow the teachings of Christ. In which case, Christ should get the credit for that - not them.
To suggest that Protestants history is "clouded" seems a bit overstated. Sure, there have been some ignorant things said and done in the name of Christ by Protestants. However, if you consider humanity as a whole there have been many more worse acts of attrocities commited by those who deny God. I would argue that those who commit the attrocities that you mentioned deny God as well (though they may not say so ).
Anyway, Christians have done far more than the simple giving of food to third worlders as I've already mentioned.
I know a fair amount of the history of my religon.
As for the "two Gods in the Bible" concept...that simply isnt true. Many people have made this argument, but it shouldn't suprise someone who has done as much research as you appear to have that there are valid explanations for this. Have you ever researched that? I'm sure should you choose to do so you can find the answer to that.
Zoroastrianism is NOT the origin of the abrahamic religons. This is a convenient argument for those who'd like it to be so. This is conjecture based on the absence of any other data. This again is essential a type of faith on the part of those who choose to believe this.
Have you ever legitimately approached anyone for answers to these questions? I have heard all of these arguments before, and received answers from pastors, etc which adequately explain all of this. I'm really quite suprised that you haven't found these answers for yourself already as you seem to have researched the arguments against Christianity fairly well. Are you sure you want the answers?
It is true that many Christians use the Old Testament incorrectly. The truth is that is is important and meant for our instruction (Israel is meant as an example to us). However, the law was given to the Jews - not to the Gentiles. Later when Christ came he fufilled the law so that we would no longer be bound by it. That's why the veil on the temple was torn from top to bottom when Christ was crucified.
It's important to view the verses that you listed in their proper context. If you'd like to see how I believe that God want's a country to operate the Old Testament is a good guide. Christ is addressing sin and redemption in the New Testament. He is talking directly to the disciples. The New Testament says the government has been given the sword by God for a reason. If that is so, then it must be that God wants that government to use that sword when necessary (to maintain social order for example). Surely, you don't think that we shouldnt have police do you?
I'd like to give you more feedbeack, but it's already midnight.
Christians in the church today DO NOT support this kind of nonsense as the Castration you've mentioned.
In fact, I find it interesting that you hold the Protestant church today guilty for the sins of the Catholic church in the past. You'd call modern day protestants evil when they would be appalled at this kind of behavior and never stand for it. It actually seems that you're making a straw man then knocking him down for the sake of knocking him down. It just doesn't wash to hold people today accountable for that. How is that just?
Anyway, nice discussion.
Thomas the Gardener Posted: Feb 2 2006, 06:56 PM
QUOTE
Of course there are many good people within Christianity. There are also many good Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shinto’s, and Hindus. It is only natural that in a world of good people, the good people flock to what they are told is also good. I am only saying that Christians are ignorant, not evil.
Yes Protestants saw the inherent evil in the Catholic Church. Some of the original Protestants went so far as to call the pope the antichrist (puritans and others). The issue is that Protestants still use the Catholic Bible, and much of the Catholic tradition. Example: it was not “determined” that Jesus was a “god” until First Council of Nicaea. A lot of what you now assume is Jesus’ teachings were not “determined” until the First Council of Nicaea, in 325 a.d. In which time they started actively disposing of all the other Christian texts, including the gospels of other apostles, and killing those Christians that followed the gospels of the other apostles. Your explanation to account for the duality of the New and Old Testament gods was created by the Catholic Church in order to explain a fundamental flaw that was left in the religion by leaving out the other texts. Some of these texts have been recovered by what could be considered a miracle 2000 years later.
“A letter that Saint Ignatius wrote to Christians in Smyrna in about 107 is the earliest surviving witness to the use of the term "catholic Church" (Smyrnaeans, 8).[1] By it Saint Ignatius designated the Christian Church in its universal aspect, excluding heretics, such as those who disavow "the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Smyrnaeans, 7).[2] He called such people "beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic
You are on the Catholic side of a great divide of Christianity. In which the Catholics came to power in Rome and wiped out all other Christians, and their texts. That said, we have found many of the lost texts
Why Enoch, Levi, James, Thomas, and Mary Magdalene were purposefully left out to the Bible? Or at least their roles severely limited? James, Thomas, and Mary where by most accounts the 3 apostles closest to Jesus, but they where Gnostitic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_Apocrypha
What about Gnosticism? Catharism was a form of Gnosticism that popped up again in the 10th century after being whipped out in the 3rd century, and was again actively attacked by the Catholics. Killing and torturing all Cahthars to the point of extinction. 11 centuries later we find the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag hammadi. So who gives you the gut feeling of “good?” The powerful organization that calls it’s self “good” and repeatedly wipes out the smaller with death and torture? Or the smaller that repeatedly sprouts anew?
That said; Gnostics and Cathars had some VERY heretical ideas. Then again, maybe the church has ingrained the ideas that these thought are heretical for a purpose. Science also is very Gnostic. My argument is not complete. I still have a lot more to learn. And I appreciate your feedback. Maybe I am wrong, maybe the Gnostics where evil and the Catholics did what they should have, but the history of the Catholic Church does not suggest that.
Concerned Zoroastrianism did it not have the concepts of hell and Satan before Christianity? Did it not have the story of the flood before Judaism? Wasn’t Abraham a Babylonian? The Bible would have you believe that the “true” religion passed from the minds of mankind not once, but twice. Both Abraham and Moses restarted a dead religion?
Thank you for your input.
Yes Protestants saw the inherent evil in the Catholic Church. Some of the original Protestants went so far as to call the pope the antichrist (puritans and others). The issue is that Protestants still use the Catholic Bible, and much of the Catholic tradition. Example: it was not “determined” that Jesus was a “god” until First Council of Nicaea. A lot of what you now assume is Jesus’ teachings were not “determined” until the First Council of Nicaea, in 325 a.d. In which time they started actively disposing of all the other Christian texts, including the gospels of other apostles, and killing those Christians that followed the gospels of the other apostles. Your explanation to account for the duality of the New and Old Testament gods was created by the Catholic Church in order to explain a fundamental flaw that was left in the religion by leaving out the other texts. Some of these texts have been recovered by what could be considered a miracle 2000 years later.
“A letter that Saint Ignatius wrote to Christians in Smyrna in about 107 is the earliest surviving witness to the use of the term "catholic Church" (Smyrnaeans, 8).[1] By it Saint Ignatius designated the Christian Church in its universal aspect, excluding heretics, such as those who disavow "the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again" (Smyrnaeans, 7).[2] He called such people "beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic
You are on the Catholic side of a great divide of Christianity. In which the Catholics came to power in Rome and wiped out all other Christians, and their texts. That said, we have found many of the lost texts
Why Enoch, Levi, James, Thomas, and Mary Magdalene were purposefully left out to the Bible? Or at least their roles severely limited? James, Thomas, and Mary where by most accounts the 3 apostles closest to Jesus, but they where Gnostitic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_Apocrypha
What about Gnosticism? Catharism was a form of Gnosticism that popped up again in the 10th century after being whipped out in the 3rd century, and was again actively attacked by the Catholics. Killing and torturing all Cahthars to the point of extinction. 11 centuries later we find the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag hammadi. So who gives you the gut feeling of “good?” The powerful organization that calls it’s self “good” and repeatedly wipes out the smaller with death and torture? Or the smaller that repeatedly sprouts anew?
That said; Gnostics and Cathars had some VERY heretical ideas. Then again, maybe the church has ingrained the ideas that these thought are heretical for a purpose. Science also is very Gnostic. My argument is not complete. I still have a lot more to learn. And I appreciate your feedback. Maybe I am wrong, maybe the Gnostics where evil and the Catholics did what they should have, but the history of the Catholic Church does not suggest that.
Concerned Zoroastrianism did it not have the concepts of hell and Satan before Christianity? Did it not have the story of the flood before Judaism? Wasn’t Abraham a Babylonian? The Bible would have you believe that the “true” religion passed from the minds of mankind not once, but twice. Both Abraham and Moses restarted a dead religion?
Thank you for your input.
Apocrypha, interesting topic. You can enter into all sorts of debates about when books were written, why certain apostles did not write books and I can reason many possibilities in return.
Once principle to keep is mind though, which I made reference to early regarding faith is that I MUST presume that if there is a God, then that God MUST preserve for me his truth, otherwise just about anyone of the time, who wanted to distort the word of God, could do so, easily.
How, lightning from heaven? The text was analyzed for agreement with rest of accepted text.
For example, the Bible as we know it contains reference to corrupt priests. So does Maccabees. However Bible shows the punishment they went through, whilst Maccabees seams to just ingore this sin. Tobit, another depicts a story of an old guy who becomes blind because of a big poo pooing in both his eyes. His son encountered an Angel who convinced the son to burn some stuff to drive away a wicked demon. The son later cured this fathers blindness...
I have not studied your particular books, however I follow a link. One talking about 8th layer of heaven. No where in the other 66 books is the heaven refered to as having layers. Should I beleive this book?
Again that principle. God will preserve. He must, or faith in him is useless. Therefore he has.
Once principle to keep is mind though, which I made reference to early regarding faith is that I MUST presume that if there is a God, then that God MUST preserve for me his truth, otherwise just about anyone of the time, who wanted to distort the word of God, could do so, easily.
How, lightning from heaven? The text was analyzed for agreement with rest of accepted text.
For example, the Bible as we know it contains reference to corrupt priests. So does Maccabees. However Bible shows the punishment they went through, whilst Maccabees seams to just ingore this sin. Tobit, another depicts a story of an old guy who becomes blind because of a big poo pooing in both his eyes. His son encountered an Angel who convinced the son to burn some stuff to drive away a wicked demon. The son later cured this fathers blindness...
I have not studied your particular books, however I follow a link. One talking about 8th layer of heaven. No where in the other 66 books is the heaven refered to as having layers. Should I beleive this book?
Again that principle. God will preserve. He must, or faith in him is useless. Therefore he has.
I am not asserting the accuracy of these texts. My point is: Why are they so different from the Biblical versions?
I have already answered that question. In fact I think the answer suggests the accuracy of the Apocrypha.
I have already answered that question. In fact I think the answer suggests the accuracy of the Apocrypha.
Some of these texts have been recovered by what could be considered a miracle 2000 years later.
Although it could also be argued that they have always been around. They have just not accessible to the general public. This is suggested by the many Gnostic sects that have popped up over the past couple millennia despite the harsh Catholic stance against having any of these texts, or beliefs. Marcion of Sinope, Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Ophites, Cainites, Carpocratians, Borborites, Bogomils, Cathars, Rosicrucian, and Freemasonry all are Gnostic revivals. Now if you research these sects they all seem to have a very satanic tone. Is that because history is written by the victors, or because they really where evil? That would suggest that at least 3 of the apostles where evil, or at the very least that their gospels where quickly written by evil? Remember the Apocrypha and the Nag Hammani date to before the Bible was completed.
QUOTE
God will preserve. He must, or faith in him is useless. Therefore he has.
I have already answered that question. In fact I think the answer suggests the accuracy of the Apocrypha.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| God will preserve. He must, or faith in him is useless. Therefore he has. |
I have already answered that question. In fact I think the answer suggests the accuracy of the Apocrypha.
Some of these texts have been recovered by what could be considered a miracle 2000 years later.
Although it could also be argued that they have always been around. They have just not accessible to the general public. This is suggested by the many Gnostic sects that have popped up over the past couple millennia despite the harsh Catholic stance against having any of these texts, or beliefs. Marcion of Sinope, Simon Magus, Cerinthus, Ophites, Cainites, Carpocratians, Borborites, Bogomils, Cathars, Rosicrucian, and Freemasonry all are Gnostic revivals. Now if you research these sects they all seem to have a very satanic tone. Is that because history is written by the victors, or because they really where evil? That would suggest that at least 3 of the apostles where evil, or at the very least that their gospels where quickly written by evil? Remember the Apocrypha and the Nag Hammani date to before the Bible was completed.
Ttg,
I have found you very logical and full of strong reasoning in the past, but I find this argument extremely weak.
An assumption (nothing more) that a particular apostle did not write a book cannot be used to designate the individual as evil.
Even predating the Christ, scripture is full of reference to false prophet. Moses him self was questioning how he would know the works of a true prophet from a false prophet. The answer was clear, if what he says comes to be, he is my prophet. If not, do not fear him.
Apostacy is nothing new, leaning on the date of a apocryha also is a week arguement. Were not other nations at that time developing their own forms of religion?
How interesting it is to find that most apoc. (that I have looked at) learn towards the philosophy of these religions.
Think about it objectively. Supose you were Satan himself. Supose your mandate was simply this - turn people from truth worship. Assumptions. Okay, how would you do it?
Go to everyones face and say "Come worship ME!!!!!"... I doubt that would work.
No, you create something which fools people. Make them think they are worshipping God,but reality they are not. Thats why John "the last restraint" talked about about how the apostacy must come. This is why Jesus said that not everyone saying lord lord will enter the kingdom of the heavens, but only those DOING THE WILL of the father will. During the time of the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 15, he was making a defence of the resurrection, why? because sects were already arising who were saying the resurection had already happened and were twisting the teaching of Christ.
Can you imagine, if Satan were able to corrupt the word of God and insert FALSE words, in effect changing the "will of God?".
Rather can you imagine God allowing this?
I have found you very logical and full of strong reasoning in the past, but I find this argument extremely weak.
An assumption (nothing more) that a particular apostle did not write a book cannot be used to designate the individual as evil.
Even predating the Christ, scripture is full of reference to false prophet. Moses him self was questioning how he would know the works of a true prophet from a false prophet. The answer was clear, if what he says comes to be, he is my prophet. If not, do not fear him.
Apostacy is nothing new, leaning on the date of a apocryha also is a week arguement. Were not other nations at that time developing their own forms of religion?
How interesting it is to find that most apoc. (that I have looked at) learn towards the philosophy of these religions.
Think about it objectively. Supose you were Satan himself. Supose your mandate was simply this - turn people from truth worship. Assumptions. Okay, how would you do it?
Go to everyones face and say "Come worship ME!!!!!"... I doubt that would work.
No, you create something which fools people. Make them think they are worshipping God,but reality they are not. Thats why John "the last restraint" talked about about how the apostacy must come. This is why Jesus said that not everyone saying lord lord will enter the kingdom of the heavens, but only those DOING THE WILL of the father will. During the time of the apostle Paul in 1 Cor 15, he was making a defence of the resurrection, why? because sects were already arising who were saying the resurection had already happened and were twisting the teaching of Christ.
Can you imagine, if Satan were able to corrupt the word of God and insert FALSE words, in effect changing the "will of God?".
Rather can you imagine God allowing this?
Yes I have a very week argument. If it was an easy argument to make the Catholic Church would have fallen millennia ago. I am still in the process of reading and trying to understand the Nag Hammadi library. What the Nag Hammadi suggests is absolutely heretical, it goes completely against Christianity as we know it. But it perfectly explains the difference between the Jewish god and the Christian god of the New Testament. To put is as simply as possible, the Nag Hammadi says that the God that created mankind is evil, well evil is a strong word… he was bitter, jealous, vengeful, spiteful, everything we know the God of the Old Testament to be. He created us to not know the difference between good and evil, in the Garden of Eden. But in the Garden of Eden there were two trees, The Tree of Knowledge (Gnostic) and the Tree of Life. God didn’t want us to eat from the Tree of Knowledge because then we would see him for who he really was. But then the God who created our creator took pity on us. She told us what the Tree of Knowledge really was, and so we ate. Our creator returned angry, we hid, and we knew Him for what he really was. Knowing that with the knowledge (Gnostic) we could one day overthrow our creator he cast us from Eden so we could not eat from the Tree of Life, and become immortal. He cast us into His Hell, Earth. He sent Demons upon the Earth to teach us to worship idols, and make blood sacrifices. This was so we could never learn the true nature of God (Gnostic). This continued until God’s creator came to Earth in the form of Jesus. Jesus taught us what was good. He taught us the evil of violence, the evil of dogma, the evil of the Jewish creator God. He again gave us the Knowledge we had lost. But that knowledge was again lost due to a corruption of Christianity. The Catholic Church formed and then sought to torture and kills all those who spread the Gnostic. A few hundred years ago I would have been killed for even saying Gnostic.
How has Christianity been spread since the Catholic Church came to power in Rome? Death, destruction and Apostasy. Do you think that is how a “good” God would spread his word?
How has Christianity been spread since the Catholic Church came to power in Rome? Death, destruction and Apostasy. Do you think that is how a “good” God would spread his word?
No, you create something which fools people. Make them think they are worshipping God,but reality they are not
That is exactly how I see the puzzle pieces fitting together.
Must I go into the things of this world God allows? By the same reasoning God would never allow Priests to molest children. If God is omnipotent why is the world so evil? If God is omnipotent why do some many people in the world live and die without ever being exposed to Christianity? Now, I am not a religious man. A religious man would be too afraid of this kind of heretical thoughts. But I do see a realistic possibility that this is the real history of Christianity, a historically evil force.
I am not making this stuff up. The Gnostics where a major portion of Christianity before The First Council of Nicaea, after which they where hunted and killed, and all records of them destroyed, other than opposition statements. We now only know of the Gnostics through a small amount of records that where hid from the Catholic Church such as the Nag Hammadi. The First Council of Nicaea happened in 325a.d. About 300 years after the death of Jesus. How many generations is that? Paul Bunyan and John Henry myths have risen and fallen in that time. There is a lot of time to embellish and mislead. The Great Deceiver.
I have not read the work, but it's clear from your description that a complete 180 is being attempted. Reversing the role of the tree's, swapping the identity of Satan and God himself. Here's a thought to ponder over - if we were saved by Jesus coming to protect us from our own creator (the angry God) and the quote below is true, then why did our evil creator openly fortell the coming of a saviour for us? (Isa 7:14 classic example, many more exist)
I have not read the work, but it's clear from your description that a complete 180 is being attempted. Reversing the role of the tree's, swapping the identity of Satan and God himself. Here's a thought to ponder over - if we were saved by Jesus coming to protect us from our own creator (the angry God) and the quote below is true, then why did our evil creator openly fortell the coming of a saviour for us? (Isa 7:14 classic example, many more exist)
This was so we could never learn the true nature of God (Gnostic).
You see how this cannot work? Let you keen sense of logic guide you. This is a classic exmple of how books end up excluded from the canon.
You are probably aware right now that I do not follow Catholic teaching. I don't want to upset anyone but I see it the same as you do. I see distortion of the identity of God (Trinity for example), distortion of our accountability (Immortal soul), assignablity of evil to God be creating such places as "hell".
You are probably aware right now that I do not follow Catholic teaching. I don't want to upset anyone but I see it the same as you do. I see distortion of the identity of God (Trinity for example), distortion of our accountability (Immortal soul), assignablity of evil to God be creating such places as "hell".
That is exactly how I see the puzzle pieces fitting together.
Me too.
You can. Here's a question for you: Do you think that the only conflict that would be taking place in the universe (if God exists) is on the earth? Do you think that such conflicts could be occuring in spiritual realms? - Where do Demons come from? Did God create EVIL demons, or did they become that way them selves?
There are issues to be resolved. Suppose you create a machine that lives. You are challenged that the machine has the right to make it's own choices and follow it's over rulership. How would you look if you killed that other person? Maybe the guy has a point that needs to be proven. Maybe you need to prove to him, over time that it is not the case.
The whole suffering thing is far more involved that simple thought leads ones too. You must keep in mind that in God exists and has power to cause resurrection - a restanding up to life, then all the things about become insignificant. Rather, the issue must be uninimously resolved.
This is like saying that "If Catholicism is so evil, why does it still preach Jesus’ teachings?” I can’t say exactly. A possibility is that Religion is an interplay between good and evil, but the people who write the texts are always human. The specific example of Isa 7:14 gives four possibilities. 1. What is the exact wording of the Torah? Could this have been manipulated into the New Testament? 2. There where Gnostics before Jesus who also influenced the writing of the Torah. 3. Jesus is the Jewish messiah. 4. Jesus’ virgin birth was added later in order to claim status as messiah. I really need to read the Torah. But why doesn’t the Old Testament contain the whole Torah, correctly translated?
This is like saying that "If Catholicism is so evil, why does it still preach Jesus’ teachings?” I can’t say exactly. A possibility is that Religion is an interplay between good and evil, but the people who write the texts are always human. The specific example of Isa 7:14 gives four possibilities. 1. What is the exact wording of the Torah? Could this have been manipulated into the New Testament? 2. There where Gnostics before Jesus who also influenced the writing of the Torah. 3. Jesus is the Jewish messiah. 4. Jesus’ virgin birth was added later in order to claim status as messiah. I really need to read the Torah. But why doesn’t the Old Testament contain the whole Torah, correctly translated?
You are probably aware right now that I do not follow Catholic teaching. I don't want to upset anyone but I see it the same as you do. I see distortion of the identity of God (Trinity for example), distortion of our accountability (Immortal soul), assignablity of evil to God be creating such places as "hell".
Yes Protestantism is an attempt for Christianity to remove its self from the evil tendencies of Catholicism. I am questioning how far back the evil tendency of Catholicism goes. There are far too many logical holes in Christianity. Christianity claims to be monotheistic. Christianity claims that God is omnipotent. But Satan is an angel, a friend of god at first but due to his jealousy of man he turns evil. He creates Hell in order to punish man. So what are angels/demons? How do angels that can corrupt the will of god fit in a monotheistic religion? Did God create the angels/demons? The pre-Christianity Book of Enoch has many of these answers, but it is also a banned book, rediscovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This suggests that Judaism is also hiding some of the history of its religion. These things show an active suppression of something. I want to understand what it is.
The Gnostic texts say that the Jewish God created demons. They also say that the Jewish God created Earth. It specifically says that Eden is “being outside the orbit of the moon and the orbit of the sun in the Land of Wantonness.” To take that literally could mean a lot. It specifically says that our creators came for somewhere in outer space. I don’t accurate the translation is. And it could just be an ancient way of saying that it is very far away, or that it is beyond our reach. And I know that many people have used poor translations or poor understandings of thing to claim all sorts of bizarre things. But my mind soars with what this could possibly mean.
Again, I am not attesting to a new religion here. But religion has been hiding something from us. No one can deny that fact. How “convenient” is it that we find all this evidence now? I know I sound like some alien conspiracy advocate, I am not. But it is undeniable that the Church has conspired to suppress the Gnostics. I want to know why.
Ever heard of the Q document? Biblical scholars see strong evidence that there was another gospel that was used when writing the Bible. This document was later destroyed.
Ever heard of the Q document? Biblical scholars see strong evidence that there was another gospel that was used when writing the Bible. This document was later destroyed.
This means that most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled
This is not possible. The Book of Revelation was writen in 96a.d. Even if you put it as written before that time, as attributed by his possible referring to Nero as the antichrist, that still says he is wrong. The Book of Revelation seems to have little place in the Bible, as its writer had no association with Jesus. The Book of Revelation was written by some crazy who wanted to overthrow Rome.
QUOTE
Think about it objectively. Supose you were Satan himself. Supose your mandate was simply this - turn people from truth worship. Assumptions. Okay, how would you do it?
Go to everyones face and say "Come worship ME!!!!!"... I doubt that would work.
Go to everyones face and say "Come worship ME!!!!!"... I doubt that would work.
How has Christianity been spread since the Catholic Church came to power in Rome? Death, destruction and Apostasy. Do you think that is how a “good” God would spread his word?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Think about it objectively. Supose you were Satan himself. Supose your mandate was simply this - turn people from truth worship. Assumptions. Okay, how would you do it? Go to everyones face and say "Come worship ME!!!!!"... I doubt that would work. |
How has Christianity been spread since the Catholic Church came to power in Rome? Death, destruction and Apostasy. Do you think that is how a “good” God would spread his word?
No, you create something which fools people. Make them think they are worshipping God,but reality they are not
That is exactly how I see the puzzle pieces fitting together.
QUOTE
Can you imagine, if Satan were able to corrupt the word of God and insert FALSE words, in effect changing the "will of God?".
Rather can you imagine God allowing this?
Rather can you imagine God allowing this?
Must I go into the things of this world God allows? By the same reasoning God would never allow Priests to molest children. If God is omnipotent why is the world so evil? If God is omnipotent why do some many people in the world live and die without ever being exposed to Christianity? Now, I am not a religious man. A religious man would be too afraid of this kind of heretical thoughts. But I do see a realistic possibility that this is the real history of Christianity, a historically evil force.
I am not making this stuff up. The Gnostics where a major portion of Christianity before The First Council of Nicaea, after which they where hunted and killed, and all records of them destroyed, other than opposition statements. We now only know of the Gnostics through a small amount of records that where hid from the Catholic Church such as the Nag Hammadi. The First Council of Nicaea happened in 325a.d. About 300 years after the death of Jesus. How many generations is that? Paul Bunyan and John Henry myths have risen and fallen in that time. There is a lot of time to embellish and mislead. The Great Deceiver.
QUOTE
Yes I have a very week argument. If it was an easy argument to make the Catholic Church would have fallen millennia ago. I am still in the process of reading and trying to understand the Nag Hammadi library. What the Nag Hammadi suggests is absolutely heretical, it goes completely against Christianity as we know it. But it perfectly explains the difference between the Jewish god and the Christian god of the New Testament. To put is as simply as possible, the Nag Hammadi says that the God that created mankind is evil, well evil is a strong word… he was bitter, jealous, vengeful, spiteful, everything we know the God of the Old Testament to be. He created us to not know the difference between good and evil, in the Garden of Eden. But in the Garden of Eden there were two trees, The Tree of Knowledge (Gnostic) and the Tree of Life. God didn’t want us to eat from the Tree of Knowledge because then we would see him for who he really was. But then the God who created our creator took pity on us. She told us what the Tree of Knowledge really was, and so we ate. Our creator returned angry, we hid, and we knew Him for what he really was. Knowing that with the knowledge (Gnostic) we could one day overthrow our creator he cast us from Eden so we could not eat from the Tree of Life, and become immortal. He cast us into His Hell, Earth. He sent Demons upon the Earth to teach us to worship idols, and make blood sacrifices. This was so we could never learn the true nature of God (Gnostic). This continued until God’s creator came to Earth in the form of Jesus. Jesus taught us what was good. He taught us the evil of violence, the evil of dogma, the evil of the Jewish creator God. He again gave us the Knowledge we had lost. But that knowledge was again lost due to a corruption of Christianity. The Catholic Church formed and then sought to torture and kills all those who spread the Gnostic. A few hundred years ago I would have been killed for even saying Gnostic.
I have not read the work, but it's clear from your description that a complete 180 is being attempted. Reversing the role of the tree's, swapping the identity of Satan and God himself. Here's a thought to ponder over - if we were saved by Jesus coming to protect us from our own creator (the angry God) and the quote below is true, then why did our evil creator openly fortell the coming of a saviour for us? (Isa 7:14 classic example, many more exist)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes I have a very week argument. If it was an easy argument to make the Catholic Church would have fallen millennia ago. I am still in the process of reading and trying to understand the Nag Hammadi library. What the Nag Hammadi suggests is absolutely heretical, it goes completely against Christianity as we know it. But it perfectly explains the difference between the Jewish god and the Christian god of the New Testament. To put is as simply as possible, the Nag Hammadi says that the God that created mankind is evil, well evil is a strong word… he was bitter, jealous, vengeful, spiteful, everything we know the God of the Old Testament to be. He created us to not know the difference between good and evil, in the Garden of Eden. But in the Garden of Eden there were two trees, The Tree of Knowledge (Gnostic) and the Tree of Life. God didn’t want us to eat from the Tree of Knowledge because then we would see him for who he really was. But then the God who created our creator took pity on us. She told us what the Tree of Knowledge really was, and so we ate. Our creator returned angry, we hid, and we knew Him for what he really was. Knowing that with the knowledge (Gnostic) we could one day overthrow our creator he cast us from Eden so we could not eat from the Tree of Life, and become immortal. He cast us into His Hell, Earth. He sent Demons upon the Earth to teach us to worship idols, and make blood sacrifices. This was so we could never learn the true nature of God (Gnostic). This continued until God’s creator came to Earth in the form of Jesus. Jesus taught us what was good. He taught us the evil of violence, the evil of dogma, the evil of the Jewish creator God. He again gave us the Knowledge we had lost. But that knowledge was again lost due to a corruption of Christianity. The Catholic Church formed and then sought to torture and kills all those who spread the Gnostic. A few hundred years ago I would have been killed for even saying Gnostic. |
I have not read the work, but it's clear from your description that a complete 180 is being attempted. Reversing the role of the tree's, swapping the identity of Satan and God himself. Here's a thought to ponder over - if we were saved by Jesus coming to protect us from our own creator (the angry God) and the quote below is true, then why did our evil creator openly fortell the coming of a saviour for us? (Isa 7:14 classic example, many more exist)
This was so we could never learn the true nature of God (Gnostic).
You see how this cannot work? Let you keen sense of logic guide you. This is a classic exmple of how books end up excluded from the canon.
QUOTE
How has Christianity been spread since the Catholic Church came to power in Rome? Death, destruction and Apostasy. Do you think that is how a “good” God would spread his word?
You are probably aware right now that I do not follow Catholic teaching. I don't want to upset anyone but I see it the same as you do. I see distortion of the identity of God (Trinity for example), distortion of our accountability (Immortal soul), assignablity of evil to God be creating such places as "hell".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How has Christianity been spread since the Catholic Church came to power in Rome? Death, destruction and Apostasy. Do you think that is how a “good” God would spread his word? |
You are probably aware right now that I do not follow Catholic teaching. I don't want to upset anyone but I see it the same as you do. I see distortion of the identity of God (Trinity for example), distortion of our accountability (Immortal soul), assignablity of evil to God be creating such places as "hell".
That is exactly how I see the puzzle pieces fitting together.
Me too.
QUOTE
Must I go into the things of this world God allows? By the same reasoning God would never allow Priests to molest children. If God is omnipotent why is the world so evil? If God is omnipotent why do some many people in the world live and die without ever being exposed to Christianity? Now, I am not a religious man. A religious man would be too afraid of this kind of heretical thoughts. But I do see a realistic possibility that this is the real history of Christianity, a historically evil force.
You can. Here's a question for you: Do you think that the only conflict that would be taking place in the universe (if God exists) is on the earth? Do you think that such conflicts could be occuring in spiritual realms? - Where do Demons come from? Did God create EVIL demons, or did they become that way them selves?
There are issues to be resolved. Suppose you create a machine that lives. You are challenged that the machine has the right to make it's own choices and follow it's over rulership. How would you look if you killed that other person? Maybe the guy has a point that needs to be proven. Maybe you need to prove to him, over time that it is not the case.
The whole suffering thing is far more involved that simple thought leads ones too. You must keep in mind that in God exists and has power to cause resurrection - a restanding up to life, then all the things about become insignificant. Rather, the issue must be uninimously resolved.
Well now this is an interesting topic. 
I'm sure that the evolutionists will think so too!
I'll have to read your posts more thoroughly when I have a chance - but for now - consider this:
Preterism - the idea that God's Kingdom was established at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Army in 70s AD.
This means that most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled. This means that the only people left on the planet were unbelievers.
This brought us into the dark ages (whatever that means). This caused people to scrounge around for anything written by any of the apostles, or those who knew Jesus. None of them would be left because they all were taken up to Heaven at the second resurrection in 70s AD.
The council of Nicea decided which writings made it into the Bible. These were not necessarily people with the same understanding, mind, and heart of Jesus and his early followers. They may not have understood many of the writings.
We, by reading some of these lost documents, can now see how they fit in. I believe that eventually - some of these new found writings will have to be included in the Bible. The Holy Spirit opens our eyes to God's word - wherever it may be found. Discernment is the key. How do we know who has the Holy Spirit and who doesn't? Some Christians will no doubt fight to their last dying breath that the Bible is the true and inerrant word of God (which it is). But it may not be the only true and inerrant word of God. Once all this knowledge comes together - there will be greater understanding and fulfillment.
Gotta go for now,
I'm sure that the evolutionists will think so too!
I'll have to read your posts more thoroughly when I have a chance - but for now - consider this:
Preterism - the idea that God's Kingdom was established at the destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Army in 70s AD.
This means that most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled. This means that the only people left on the planet were unbelievers.
This brought us into the dark ages (whatever that means). This caused people to scrounge around for anything written by any of the apostles, or those who knew Jesus. None of them would be left because they all were taken up to Heaven at the second resurrection in 70s AD.
The council of Nicea decided which writings made it into the Bible. These were not necessarily people with the same understanding, mind, and heart of Jesus and his early followers. They may not have understood many of the writings.
We, by reading some of these lost documents, can now see how they fit in. I believe that eventually - some of these new found writings will have to be included in the Bible. The Holy Spirit opens our eyes to God's word - wherever it may be found. Discernment is the key. How do we know who has the Holy Spirit and who doesn't? Some Christians will no doubt fight to their last dying breath that the Bible is the true and inerrant word of God (which it is). But it may not be the only true and inerrant word of God. Once all this knowledge comes together - there will be greater understanding and fulfillment.
Gotta go for now,
QUOTE
...if we were saved by Jesus coming to protect us from our own creator (the angry God) and the quote below is true, then why did our evil creator openly fortell the coming of a saviour for us? (Isa 7:14 classic example, many more exist)
This is like saying that "If Catholicism is so evil, why does it still preach Jesus’ teachings?” I can’t say exactly. A possibility is that Religion is an interplay between good and evil, but the people who write the texts are always human. The specific example of Isa 7:14 gives four possibilities. 1. What is the exact wording of the Torah? Could this have been manipulated into the New Testament? 2. There where Gnostics before Jesus who also influenced the writing of the Torah. 3. Jesus is the Jewish messiah. 4. Jesus’ virgin birth was added later in order to claim status as messiah. I really need to read the Torah. But why doesn’t the Old Testament contain the whole Torah, correctly translated?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...if we were saved by Jesus coming to protect us from our own creator (the angry God) and the quote below is true, then why did our evil creator openly fortell the coming of a saviour for us? (Isa 7:14 classic example, many more exist) |
This is like saying that "If Catholicism is so evil, why does it still preach Jesus’ teachings?” I can’t say exactly. A possibility is that Religion is an interplay between good and evil, but the people who write the texts are always human. The specific example of Isa 7:14 gives four possibilities. 1. What is the exact wording of the Torah? Could this have been manipulated into the New Testament? 2. There where Gnostics before Jesus who also influenced the writing of the Torah. 3. Jesus is the Jewish messiah. 4. Jesus’ virgin birth was added later in order to claim status as messiah. I really need to read the Torah. But why doesn’t the Old Testament contain the whole Torah, correctly translated?
You are probably aware right now that I do not follow Catholic teaching. I don't want to upset anyone but I see it the same as you do. I see distortion of the identity of God (Trinity for example), distortion of our accountability (Immortal soul), assignablity of evil to God be creating such places as "hell".
Yes Protestantism is an attempt for Christianity to remove its self from the evil tendencies of Catholicism. I am questioning how far back the evil tendency of Catholicism goes. There are far too many logical holes in Christianity. Christianity claims to be monotheistic. Christianity claims that God is omnipotent. But Satan is an angel, a friend of god at first but due to his jealousy of man he turns evil. He creates Hell in order to punish man. So what are angels/demons? How do angels that can corrupt the will of god fit in a monotheistic religion? Did God create the angels/demons? The pre-Christianity Book of Enoch has many of these answers, but it is also a banned book, rediscovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls. This suggests that Judaism is also hiding some of the history of its religion. These things show an active suppression of something. I want to understand what it is.
QUOTE
Here's a question for you: Do you think that the only conflict that would be taking place in the universe (if God exists) is on the earth? Do you think that such conflicts could be occuring in spiritual realms? - Where do Demons come from? Did God create EVIL demons, or did they become that way them selves?
The Gnostic texts say that the Jewish God created demons. They also say that the Jewish God created Earth. It specifically says that Eden is “being outside the orbit of the moon and the orbit of the sun in the Land of Wantonness.” To take that literally could mean a lot. It specifically says that our creators came for somewhere in outer space. I don’t accurate the translation is. And it could just be an ancient way of saying that it is very far away, or that it is beyond our reach. And I know that many people have used poor translations or poor understandings of thing to claim all sorts of bizarre things. But my mind soars with what this could possibly mean.
Again, I am not attesting to a new religion here. But religion has been hiding something from us. No one can deny that fact. How “convenient” is it that we find all this evidence now? I know I sound like some alien conspiracy advocate, I am not. But it is undeniable that the Church has conspired to suppress the Gnostics. I want to know why.
QUOTE
Once all this knowledge comes together - there will be greater understanding and fulfillment.
Ever heard of the Q document? Biblical scholars see strong evidence that there was another gospel that was used when writing the Bible. This document was later destroyed.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once all this knowledge comes together - there will be greater understanding and fulfillment. |
Ever heard of the Q document? Biblical scholars see strong evidence that there was another gospel that was used when writing the Bible. This document was later destroyed.
This means that most of the book of Revelation was fulfilled
This is not possible. The Book of Revelation was writen in 96a.d. Even if you put it as written before that time, as attributed by his possible referring to Nero as the antichrist, that still says he is wrong. The Book of Revelation seems to have little place in the Bible, as its writer had no association with Jesus. The Book of Revelation was written by some crazy who wanted to overthrow Rome.
Come on! Everyone wants to point out the holes in evolution. Let's talk about the holes in Christianity. I am not going to let this die. Please! Tell me how I am wrong. Use logic, use references, use anything, just please help me. Tell me why I am wrong.
QUOTE (Thomas the Gardener+Feb 7 2006, 05:41 PM)
Come on! Everyone wants to point out the holes in evolution. Let's talk about the holes in Christianity.
Why? Their believes are not my concern unless they try to force them on me. Do you really think that I should force my believes on them or on you?
Why? Their believes are not my concern unless they try to force them on me. Do you really think that I should force my believes on them or on you?
The Bible does not contain ALL holy scripture. It is just the Bible, a collection of holy scripture. I lost all faith in that when I learned of the Council of Nicea. Give me a break! Some stories you hear and you can just feel the b.s. radiating from them. Such is the case of the Council. The Apostles could not agree with one another about the nature of Jesus. Rome became dominant, therefore the beliefs of Peter and his followers became dominant. Just because they wiped out the followers of Thomas does not make them right. I have always sided with the Gnostic, even before I knew there was such a thing. I never could worship anything that walked on two legs....
If Christianity as it is taught now is true, then all of time and every life is already a closed book and there is no point in this charade for anything other than the entertainment value it contains for a group of sick deities. Holy scripture and holy men continue through time. They have just been ignored. Like always! Remember, even Satan can quote scripture.
If Christianity as it is taught now is true, then all of time and every life is already a closed book and there is no point in this charade for anything other than the entertainment value it contains for a group of sick deities. Holy scripture and holy men continue through time. They have just been ignored. Like always! Remember, even Satan can quote scripture.
OdinsAcolyte that is similar to my argument. If Christianity is so special I want an explanation, but it seems to me that all of Christianity is a lie. So if the foundation of Christianity can be so easily questioned, why does Christianity have so much influence in the modern world?
We are all scientifically minded people here right? In science, if you believe something, and try to convince others using logic is that proselytizing? No. My goal here is to present the illogical foundation of a religion. I want to use logic to present possibilities. I want to know if there are any scientifically minded Christians out there that can defend Christianity, I know how the church seeks to explain them but the church’s explanations defy logic. I have said before that a religion must be based on faith, and every one disagreed, but no one can answer my questions. How can IDers hold so strongly to something if they can't even defend their religion from a simple heretic?
Once again, I invite anyone to present a logical argument to prove me wrong. Tell me why Christianity wasn't destroyed at the Council of Nicea.
QUOTE
Do you really think that I should force my believes on them or on you?
We are all scientifically minded people here right? In science, if you believe something, and try to convince others using logic is that proselytizing? No. My goal here is to present the illogical foundation of a religion. I want to use logic to present possibilities. I want to know if there are any scientifically minded Christians out there that can defend Christianity, I know how the church seeks to explain them but the church’s explanations defy logic. I have said before that a religion must be based on faith, and every one disagreed, but no one can answer my questions. How can IDers hold so strongly to something if they can't even defend their religion from a simple heretic?
Once again, I invite anyone to present a logical argument to prove me wrong. Tell me why Christianity wasn't destroyed at the Council of Nicea.
QUOTE (OdinsAcolyte+Feb 7 2006, 12:19 PM)
just because they wiped out the followers of Thomas does not make them right. I have always sided with the Gnostic, even before I knew there was such a thing.
I find it ironic that many fundamentalist christian sects today show traits common to some Gnostic sects, though in somewhat different guise.
From wikipedia:
These fundamantalist all claim to Know God. Not to have faith and belief in his exisistence but to know God personally and understand his nature.
from wikipedia:
These fundamantalist all claim to Know God. Not to have faith and belief in his exisistence but to know God personally and understand his nature.
from wikipedia:
They also commonly depict creation as a mythopoetic struggle between competing forces of light and dark, and posit a marked division between the material realm, which is typically depicted as under the governance of malign forces, and the higher spiritual realm from which it is divided.
These fundamnetalist Christians seem obsessed with the next life. Either salvation or damnation at death, or ressurection for those that seem impatient for the apocalypse. So obsessed that current everyday reality is of little importance, except perhaps in it's effects on the after life. It is either unreal, so trivial as to be dismissed ( Perhaps why so many are willing to reject things such as the age of the earth or how species arise ) or simply as a test before real life begins in the next world. They see all as a battle of good vs evil, and generally seem to act as if they believe evil has the upper hand in the here and now.
They believe in special knowledge and initiation. The knowledge is holy revelation in the bible, only it is true knowledge. And it has to be read in a certain way ( "prayerfully", "with faith" ) to be properly understood. Those who read it and find different conclusions were not "doing it the right way."
And I wouldn't say the Mohammed cartoons were trashing religion either - but looks like it had the same effect.
And I wouldn't say the Mohammed cartoons were trashing religion either - but looks like it had the same effect.
Why is it not possible that there is a 'purpose' to life without the need for an afterlife? Perhaps the purpose is to make the most of what you have here and now, while you still have it. If there is no afterlife, suddenly you have to face the real-world consequences of your actions. e.g., if I decide to break up with my girlfriend, then with no afterlife I've lost perhaps the single most important part of my life, and what is currently my only shot at 'heaven'. If there is an afterlife, then who cares, it'll all be groovy in 70 years or so. That's my view of it, anyway.
Evolution says the purpose is survival. That's not good enough for me.
You appear to be looking for a purpose - but there is none according to the theory of evolution, other than to survive. The purposes you describe are all about self-gratification - an atheistic point of view that lacks conviction. Materialism, naturalism, methodical, patternism, etc.
Two different things, basically. There is atheism, and there is lack of conviction. You can be an uncommitted atheist just floating through life, going wherever the wind blows, succeeding at nothing, and going nowhere, confused, lack of focus, etc. You don't have to be an atheist to lack conviction, though. Also, because you may lack conviction, doesn't mean you're an atheist. Lack of conviction would apply to people of faith as well.
Two different things, basically. There is atheism, and there is lack of conviction. You can be an uncommitted atheist just floating through life, going wherever the wind blows, succeeding at nothing, and going nowhere, confused, lack of focus, etc. You don't have to be an atheist to lack conviction, though. Also, because you may lack conviction, doesn't mean you're an atheist. Lack of conviction would apply to people of faith as well.
I don't understand your last point - can you elaborate, please?
Even worse are those who need nothing.
Someone who needs nothing (be they rich, or be they poor) is self-righteous. They think they are superior to others, they lack humility and compassion. They believe they can provide for all their own needs. When they accomplish something, they think they did it. They don't see all the people, and even God, who worked behind the scenes. They don't appreciate the sacrifices of others. When something goes wrong, then they get upset at and blame people, and God.
I find it ironic that many fundamentalist christian sects today show traits common to some Gnostic sects, though in somewhat different guise.
From wikipedia:
QUOTE
Unlike modern English, ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being "propositional knowledge", as being indicative of knowledge acquired indirectly through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know of Wikipedia" or "I know Berlin is in Germany"), and knowledge acquired by direct participation or acquaintance (such as "I know Wikipedia well" or "I know Berlin, having visited").
Gnosis (γνώσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on knowledge in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to mystical or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the the divine. Indeed, in most gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this 'knowledge of' ('acquaintance with') the divine.
Gnosis (γνώσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on knowledge in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to mystical or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the the divine. Indeed, in most gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this 'knowledge of' ('acquaintance with') the divine.
These fundamantalist all claim to Know God. Not to have faith and belief in his exisistence but to know God personally and understand his nature.
from wikipedia:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Unlike modern English, ancient Greek was capable of discerning between several different forms of knowing. These different forms may be described in English as being "propositional knowledge", as being indicative of knowledge acquired indirectly through the reports of others or otherwise by inference (such as "I know of Wikipedia" or "I know Berlin is in Germany"), and knowledge acquired by direct participation or acquaintance (such as "I know Wikipedia well" or "I know Berlin, having visited"). Gnosis (γνώσις) refers to knowledge of the second kind. Therefore, in a religious context, to be 'gnostic' should be understood as being reliant not on knowledge in a general sense, but as being specially receptive to mystical or esoteric experiences of direct participation with the the divine. Indeed, in most gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this 'knowledge of' ('acquaintance with') the divine. |
These fundamantalist all claim to Know God. Not to have faith and belief in his exisistence but to know God personally and understand his nature.
from wikipedia:
They also commonly depict creation as a mythopoetic struggle between competing forces of light and dark, and posit a marked division between the material realm, which is typically depicted as under the governance of malign forces, and the higher spiritual realm from which it is divided.
These fundamnetalist Christians seem obsessed with the next life. Either salvation or damnation at death, or ressurection for those that seem impatient for the apocalypse. So obsessed that current everyday reality is of little importance, except perhaps in it's effects on the after life. It is either unreal, so trivial as to be dismissed ( Perhaps why so many are willing to reject things such as the age of the earth or how species arise ) or simply as a test before real life begins in the next world. They see all as a battle of good vs evil, and generally seem to act as if they believe evil has the upper hand in the here and now.
They believe in special knowledge and initiation. The knowledge is holy revelation in the bible, only it is true knowledge. And it has to be read in a certain way ( "prayerfully", "with faith" ) to be properly understood. Those who read it and find different conclusions were not "doing it the right way."
People may be obsessed with the next life - but I say - If there is no next life then there is no purpose.
The Bible says everything is permitted, but not everything is beneficial.
If there is no next life - then this changes the perspective on a few things. Some people, like me
, are perfectly capable of leading moral lives without the promise of a 'next life' - but many people (rich or poor, slave or free, male or female) are not.
So before you trash all the religions, and think yourself better and higher than those fools who believe in God, think about the kind of world you'd be living in if it weren't for the fools for God.
There is much to dislike about religion.
There is much to dislike about atheism and lack of conviction.
Even worse are those who need nothing.
There is great worth in morality.
Commandments kept in honor of God are not commandments at all - they are love and gratitude.
The Bible says everything is permitted, but not everything is beneficial.
If there is no next life - then this changes the perspective on a few things. Some people, like me
, are perfectly capable of leading moral lives without the promise of a 'next life' - but many people (rich or poor, slave or free, male or female) are not.So before you trash all the religions, and think yourself better and higher than those fools who believe in God, think about the kind of world you'd be living in if it weren't for the fools for God.
There is much to dislike about religion.
There is much to dislike about atheism and lack of conviction.
Even worse are those who need nothing.
There is great worth in morality.
Commandments kept in honor of God are not commandments at all - they are love and gratitude.
Messenger,
I wouldn't say grendle was trashing religion. He made seemingly valid points comparing fundamentalists to gnostics (I know little about the latter).
Why is it not possible that there is a 'purpose' to life without the need for an afterlife? Perhaps the purpose is to make the most of what you have here and now, while you still have it. If there is no afterlife, suddenly you have to face the real-world consequences of your actions. e.g., if I decide to break up with my girlfriend, then with no afterlife I've lost perhaps the single most important part of my life, and what is currently my only shot at 'heaven'. If there is an afterlife, then who cares, it'll all be groovy in 70 years or so. That's my view of it, anyway.
There is much to dislike about religion, when taken too far, and much to dislike about atheism, when taken too far. I'd not say atheism equates to lack of conviction - on the contrary, it is the conviction/belief that there is no god.
I don't understand your last point - can you elaborate, please?
Hope everyone is doing well.
Kaeroll
I wouldn't say grendle was trashing religion. He made seemingly valid points comparing fundamentalists to gnostics (I know little about the latter).
Why is it not possible that there is a 'purpose' to life without the need for an afterlife? Perhaps the purpose is to make the most of what you have here and now, while you still have it. If there is no afterlife, suddenly you have to face the real-world consequences of your actions. e.g., if I decide to break up with my girlfriend, then with no afterlife I've lost perhaps the single most important part of my life, and what is currently my only shot at 'heaven'. If there is an afterlife, then who cares, it'll all be groovy in 70 years or so. That's my view of it, anyway.
QUOTE
There is much to dislike about religion.
There is much to dislike about atheism and lack of conviction.
Even worse are those who need nothing.
There is much to dislike about atheism and lack of conviction.
Even worse are those who need nothing.
There is much to dislike about religion, when taken too far, and much to dislike about atheism, when taken too far. I'd not say atheism equates to lack of conviction - on the contrary, it is the conviction/belief that there is no god.
I don't understand your last point - can you elaborate, please?
Hope everyone is doing well.
Kaeroll
St.Peter goes up to god and says to him: God, humans managed to decode the human DNA
God replies: DAMN HACKERS, NOW I HAVE TO CHANGE THE PASSWORD AGAIN!!
God replies: DAMN HACKERS, NOW I HAVE TO CHANGE THE PASSWORD AGAIN!!
QUOTE
I wouldn't say grendle was trashing religion.
And I wouldn't say the Mohammed cartoons were trashing religion either - but looks like it had the same effect.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I wouldn't say grendle was trashing religion. |
And I wouldn't say the Mohammed cartoons were trashing religion either - but looks like it had the same effect.
Why is it not possible that there is a 'purpose' to life without the need for an afterlife? Perhaps the purpose is to make the most of what you have here and now, while you still have it. If there is no afterlife, suddenly you have to face the real-world consequences of your actions. e.g., if I decide to break up with my girlfriend, then with no afterlife I've lost perhaps the single most important part of my life, and what is currently my only shot at 'heaven'. If there is an afterlife, then who cares, it'll all be groovy in 70 years or so. That's my view of it, anyway.
Evolution says the purpose is survival. That's not good enough for me.
You appear to be looking for a purpose - but there is none according to the theory of evolution, other than to survive. The purposes you describe are all about self-gratification - an atheistic point of view that lacks conviction. Materialism, naturalism, methodical, patternism, etc.
QUOTE
I'd not say atheism equates to lack of conviction - on the contrary, it is the conviction/belief that there is no god.
Two different things, basically. There is atheism, and there is lack of conviction. You can be an uncommitted atheist just floating through life, going wherever the wind blows, succeeding at nothing, and going nowhere, confused, lack of focus, etc. You don't have to be an atheist to lack conviction, though. Also, because you may lack conviction, doesn't mean you're an atheist. Lack of conviction would apply to people of faith as well.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'd not say atheism equates to lack of conviction - on the contrary, it is the conviction/belief that there is no god. |
Two different things, basically. There is atheism, and there is lack of conviction. You can be an uncommitted atheist just floating through life, going wherever the wind blows, succeeding at nothing, and going nowhere, confused, lack of focus, etc. You don't have to be an atheist to lack conviction, though. Also, because you may lack conviction, doesn't mean you're an atheist. Lack of conviction would apply to people of faith as well.
I don't understand your last point - can you elaborate, please?
Even worse are those who need nothing.
Someone who needs nothing (be they rich, or be they poor) is self-righteous. They think they are superior to others, they lack humility and compassion. They believe they can provide for all their own needs. When they accomplish something, they think they did it. They don't see all the people, and even God, who worked behind the scenes. They don't appreciate the sacrifices of others. When something goes wrong, then they get upset at and blame people, and God.
Hi Messenger.
The reactions of Muslims over the cartoons are a prime example of over-reacting and the inherent flaws in religious control. Are you saying that you over-reacted to Grendle’s comments?
The reactions of Muslims over the cartoons are a prime example of over-reacting and the inherent flaws in religious control. Are you saying that you over-reacted to Grendle’s comments?
Evolution says the purpose is survival. That's not good enough for me.
You appear to be looking for a purpose - but there is none according to the theory of evolution, other than to survive.
Nor does evolution even attempt to address any purpose in the manner you mean. Evolution addresses how life develops and changes over time. The view of survival is important, but considering that evolution does not seek to address purpose in the way you mean, the topic is a non sequitur.
Conviction of what? I higher form giving approval? Your vaulted religious outlook is also one of self-gratification. Be it through a self-depravation for the “next world” or the often encountered superior attitude of perceived self control based upon religious doctrine, it all comes down to self-gratification.
You seem to overlook that atheist or even supporters of evolution do not think we are “just animals” when it comes to social issues and contemplation of purpose. Thiest often try to extend that fact that we are just animals to impact negatively on human social issues and constructs.
Conviction of what? I higher form giving approval? Your vaulted religious outlook is also one of self-gratification. Be it through a self-depravation for the “next world” or the often encountered superior attitude of perceived self control based upon religious doctrine, it all comes down to self-gratification.
You seem to overlook that atheist or even supporters of evolution do not think we are “just animals” when it comes to social issues and contemplation of purpose. Thiest often try to extend that fact that we are just animals to impact negatively on human social issues and constructs.
Someone who needs nothing (be they rich, or be they poor) is self-righteous.
They could also just be self-sufficient.
Also speaking of the self-righteous, let us not overlook the theists in this discussion. How many of the faithful have come here and, with a self-righteous attitude, told everyone who is not of their faith of the harm, wrong and eventual torture they will endure due to their lack of theism in general or a specific theism? Self-righteous behavior is far from being a factor of just the attitude of an atheist.
Survival sure ranks up there. When it comes down to the brass tacks, survival becomes the most important thing to most people. Given the 'test of extremes', it seems to be the most important thing to most people.
Survival of ourselves is followed closely by survival of our family. Evolution really does explain that ...
And I wouldn't say the Mohammed cartoons were trashing religion either - but looks like it had the same effect.
I don't know how showing the prophet of the religion wearing a turban shaped like a bomb, implying that the religion is all about terrorism is not trashing that religion? One could argue that it is supposed to be so over the top offensive as to be funny and not serious, but thats hard to expect when you publish something in a newspaper with such a widespread audience. At any rate what Grendle said is nothing as disrespectful as the cartoons. I didn't find it offensive at all, and maybe you did a bit.
I don't know how showing the prophet of the religion wearing a turban shaped like a bomb, implying that the religion is all about terrorism is not trashing that religion? One could argue that it is supposed to be so over the top offensive as to be funny and not serious, but thats hard to expect when you publish something in a newspaper with such a widespread audience. At any rate what Grendle said is nothing as disrespectful as the cartoons. I didn't find it offensive at all, and maybe you did a bit.
Evolution says the purpose is survival. That's not good enough for me.
You appear to be looking for a purpose - but there is none according to the theory of evolution, other than to survive. The purposes you describe are all about self-gratification - an atheistic point of view that lacks conviction. Materialism, naturalism, methodical, patternism, etc.
And thats where your religion comes in for you. And as has been stated many times, evolution doesn't try to address purpose. It leaves that to everyone to decide on their own. Evolution allows some sort of free thinking, where as your purpose is force fed to you. Also, it has been pointed out that the non believing people here still feel their is a purpose to their life, its just not the same as what you feel the purpose is.
Someone seems to be practicing their valentine's day speech....speaking of valentines day....I better go out and buy a present.....hehe
I respectfully disagree. Though I do find it strange the Jesus did not insist that his views be written down immediately (whether he was divine or just enlightened he should have known that anything he said could be easily manipulated if it wasn't written down), I believe much of Mark to represent His actual teachings. If this is true, then He taught of a "good" far different then the Jewish God. This massive discrepancy wasn't even "solved" until much after the Council of Nicea, and is still the source of much debate.
The only explanation that seems to fix is that Jesus was a polytheist. This of course has been edited out. But polytheism was not extinct from Judaism at that time; it could be argued that modern Judaism is also not monotheistic. I have to agree with the Gnostic explanation of Jesus, it seems to make much more since than any other's I've heard. Though I don't like the heavy duality of Gnosticism.
The more I figure out the less I know. It also seems very likely that Jesus followed the Kabbalah tradition of Judaism. I don't think that modern revivals of Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Hermeticism, or any other modern esoteric tradition successfully replicate the old traditions. There is so much that is still lost. We may never know. But then again the Nag Hammandi and the Dead Sea Scrolls came back to us, who knows what else we will find one day? But currently there are just too many dead ends.
That is one of the most reasonable statements I've read in a while, Grendle. One of the best things about not embracing a singular faith is that it frees me to find the good in ALL faiths (and reject the bad in each as well), which is something that is difficult for most adherents of religion (especially monotheistic faiths that equate all other beliefs as inspired by an evil force).
Or YHWH was the god that would smite you if you dared listen to another god.
Or YHWH was the god that would smite you if you dared listen to another god.
Ebionites believe that monotheism disallows a belief in a "Satan" that competes with God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionite
I would like to see people come up with a religion that used the best parts of Christianity, Gnosticism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. It seems to me that the all have very positive parts to them that the others lack, but they all have very negative aspects also. I would also be nice if it could be proven that Jesus' teachings differed significantly from Christianity. But we can't even convince Christians that Christianity is different from what the Bible says:
Matthew 19:23-24
Messenger Posted: Feb 8 2006, 03:10 AM
Matthew 19:23-24
Messenger Posted: Feb 8 2006, 03:10 AM Jesus does not desire that people be poor. God expects you to increase the talents you have been given (talent = skill or money).
The camel story is a story - a parable. It is not meant to be taken literally. Jesus is simply trying to point out that a rich person who is not a loving and giving person will struggle to enter the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is within you.
Thomas the Gardener Posted: Feb 8 2006, 06:52 PM
It seems that people will just believe what ever they want to believe, and damn anyone who wants to use "logic" there's no place for logic in the Bible. This is the truly awful part. You don’t even have to suppress the writings of a prophet to prevent people from learning from what they say. You can give them the very words the prophet said, and then give them a whole lot of misinformation about what it means. Because god forbid any Christian read the Bible and make up their own mind about it, yeah, I think the Catholic Church actually said at one time that God did forbid it.
QUOTE
And I wouldn't say the Mohammed cartoons were trashing religion either - but looks like it had the same effect.
The reactions of Muslims over the cartoons are a prime example of over-reacting and the inherent flaws in religious control. Are you saying that you over-reacted to Grendle’s comments?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And I wouldn't say the Mohammed cartoons were trashing religion either - but looks like it had the same effect. |
The reactions of Muslims over the cartoons are a prime example of over-reacting and the inherent flaws in religious control. Are you saying that you over-reacted to Grendle’s comments?
Evolution says the purpose is survival. That's not good enough for me.
You appear to be looking for a purpose - but there is none according to the theory of evolution, other than to survive.
Nor does evolution even attempt to address any purpose in the manner you mean. Evolution addresses how life develops and changes over time. The view of survival is important, but considering that evolution does not seek to address purpose in the way you mean, the topic is a non sequitur.
QUOTE
The purposes you describe are all about self-gratification - an atheistic point of view that lacks conviction. Materialism, naturalism, methodical, patternism, etc.
Conviction of what? I higher form giving approval? Your vaulted religious outlook is also one of self-gratification. Be it through a self-depravation for the “next world” or the often encountered superior attitude of perceived self control based upon religious doctrine, it all comes down to self-gratification.
You seem to overlook that atheist or even supporters of evolution do not think we are “just animals” when it comes to social issues and contemplation of purpose. Thiest often try to extend that fact that we are just animals to impact negatively on human social issues and constructs.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The purposes you describe are all about self-gratification - an atheistic point of view that lacks conviction. Materialism, naturalism, methodical, patternism, etc. |
Conviction of what? I higher form giving approval? Your vaulted religious outlook is also one of self-gratification. Be it through a self-depravation for the “next world” or the often encountered superior attitude of perceived self control based upon religious doctrine, it all comes down to self-gratification.
You seem to overlook that atheist or even supporters of evolution do not think we are “just animals” when it comes to social issues and contemplation of purpose. Thiest often try to extend that fact that we are just animals to impact negatively on human social issues and constructs.
Someone who needs nothing (be they rich, or be they poor) is self-righteous.
They could also just be self-sufficient.
QUOTE
They think they are superior to others, they lack humility and compassion. They believe they can provide for all their own needs. When they accomplish something, they think they did it. They don't see all the people, and even God, who worked behind the scenes. They don't appreciate the sacrifices of others.
And here is where your religion, limited views and assumption lead you astray in your attempt at rational thought. A lack of humility or compassion is no crime nor is conceit unless you consider the spirit crimes of the xian religion. A person can do everything by themselves and rely upon no one and whatever they accomplish is indeed their own. You make an assumption that the xian god is a given and even if you assume such, that the xian god is actively involved in everything man does. Also speaking of the self-righteous, let us not overlook the theists in this discussion. How many of the faithful have come here and, with a self-righteous attitude, told everyone who is not of their faith of the harm, wrong and eventual torture they will endure due to their lack of theism in general or a specific theism? Self-righteous behavior is far from being a factor of just the attitude of an atheist.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| They think they are superior to others, they lack humility and compassion. They believe they can provide for all their own needs. When they accomplish something, they think they did it. They don't see all the people, and even God, who worked behind the scenes. They don't appreciate the sacrifices of others. |
And here is where your religion, limited views and assumption lead you astray in your attempt at rational thought. A lack of humility or compassion is no crime nor is conceit unless you consider the spirit crimes of the xian religion. A person can do everything by themselves and rely upon no one and whatever they accomplish is indeed their own. You make an assumption that the xian god is a given and even if you assume such, that the xian god is actively involved in everything man does.
Also speaking of the self-righteous, let us not overlook the theists in this discussion. How many of the faithful have come here and, with a self-righteous attitude, told everyone who is not of their faith of the harm, wrong and eventual torture they will endure due to their lack of theism in general or a specific theism? Self-righteous behavior is far from being a factor of just the attitude of an atheist.
When something goes wrong, then they get upset at and blame people, and God.
This is not the typical reaction of the self-sufficient. The self-righteous do not even need to attempt anything to make such a claim. They can simply claim that they cannot make the attempt because of god, society, bad mojo, evil eye, etc.
Take the opposite for example. Let say and athlete spends years training and goes to the Olympics and wins a medal. Invariable, thanking the xian god enters into the picture or it is mentioned the he or she is “blessed” by god with ability or some such acknowledgment that god had a hand in it. Yet if the same athlete fails to win, well then it must have been something he or she did. The athlete must have not trained hard enough or wanted it bad enough. It never seems that the xian god has anything to do with failure. Wonderfuly selective PR.
Also speaking of the self-righteous, let us not overlook the theists in this discussion. How many of the faithful have come here and, with a self-righteous attitude, told everyone who is not of their faith of the harm, wrong and eventual torture they will endure due to their lack of theism in general or a specific theism? Self-righteous behavior is far from being a factor of just the attitude of an atheist.
When something goes wrong, then they get upset at and blame people, and God.
This is not the typical reaction of the self-sufficient. The self-righteous do not even need to attempt anything to make such a claim. They can simply claim that they cannot make the attempt because of god, society, bad mojo, evil eye, etc.
Take the opposite for example. Let say and athlete spends years training and goes to the Olympics and wins a medal. Invariable, thanking the xian god enters into the picture or it is mentioned the he or she is “blessed” by god with ability or some such acknowledgment that god had a hand in it. Yet if the same athlete fails to win, well then it must have been something he or she did. The athlete must have not trained hard enough or wanted it bad enough. It never seems that the xian god has anything to do with failure. Wonderfuly selective PR.
QUOTE
Evolution says the purpose is survival. That's not good enough for me.
You appear to be looking for a purpose - but there is none according to the theory of evolution, other than to survive.
You appear to be looking for a purpose - but there is none according to the theory of evolution, other than to survive.
Survival sure ranks up there. When it comes down to the brass tacks, survival becomes the most important thing to most people. Given the 'test of extremes', it seems to be the most important thing to most people.
Survival of ourselves is followed closely by survival of our family. Evolution really does explain that ...
A poster in another topic summed up my point of view very nicely:
Evolution does not give a meaning to life, but our lives are still meaningful. When I look at my girlfriend, for example, it does not matter whether she's the product of millions of years of development and growth, or was conjured out of the sky by God. Either way, she is still beautiful and unique and special, and has transformed me, my life and my view of the world. Feelings like that, whether divine or biochemical, are surely meaningful either way?
QUOTE
Only if I choose to be.
Let me tell you, I am very important to those who love me, and those I love.
I can become really important to anyone I interact with. I am hardly insignificant. Just because I am 1/100,000,000,000th the size of the sun, doesn't mean I am unimportant. So there's no need to tell me I'm insignificant, because it's not true. It doesn't need to be true for you either.
Let me tell you, I am very important to those who love me, and those I love.
I can become really important to anyone I interact with. I am hardly insignificant. Just because I am 1/100,000,000,000th the size of the sun, doesn't mean I am unimportant. So there's no need to tell me I'm insignificant, because it's not true. It doesn't need to be true for you either.
Evolution does not give a meaning to life, but our lives are still meaningful. When I look at my girlfriend, for example, it does not matter whether she's the product of millions of years of development and growth, or was conjured out of the sky by God. Either way, she is still beautiful and unique and special, and has transformed me, my life and my view of the world. Feelings like that, whether divine or biochemical, are surely meaningful either way?
The problem with atheism is that it also jumps to conclusions. I could easily be argued that there is some substance to religion, if only as an aspect of our mind. The first person to notice the root of all religion was Sir James Frazer in 1890. In his book The Golden Bough he tries to connect the dots with all the major world religions. It quickly becomes easier to find the connections in all the past and present old world religions. Why are all of the world's religions interconnected? Is it because the all originate from one original religion, or is it because the aspects of religion are ingrained into our minds.
The first major similarity Frazer noticed was the Tree of Life. Yggdrasil of the Norse, a Tree of Life was found in China dating to 1,200 B.C., the Arabic Fountain of Youth is a very similar story, the Egyptians had a Tree of Life, and of course Kabbalah. The Tree of Knowledge occurs in Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhism. Adam and Eve are also a reoccurring aspect. All these religions are very different but that just happens through story tellers and word of mouth movement of religion over thousands of years. It is easily documented who made up much of ancient Greek mythology, but the fact that much of Christianity was embellished based only on the Book of Mark (or possibly a Q document) has been suppressed, violently. But even the most die-hard Christian must see that the Bible was not written by God, but by men.
Christianity and Islam generate such a following because they have so violently oppressed any alternative view points within the religion. This creates a stronger base; by keeping "on message" they seem to have a very plausible reality. The problem with the world is not religion; it is the religions the survived due to their brutality, specifically Christianity and Islam.
The first major similarity Frazer noticed was the Tree of Life. Yggdrasil of the Norse, a Tree of Life was found in China dating to 1,200 B.C., the Arabic Fountain of Youth is a very similar story, the Egyptians had a Tree of Life, and of course Kabbalah. The Tree of Knowledge occurs in Jewish, Christian, Hindu, and Buddhism. Adam and Eve are also a reoccurring aspect. All these religions are very different but that just happens through story tellers and word of mouth movement of religion over thousands of years. It is easily documented who made up much of ancient Greek mythology, but the fact that much of Christianity was embellished based only on the Book of Mark (or possibly a Q document) has been suppressed, violently. But even the most die-hard Christian must see that the Bible was not written by God, but by men.
Christianity and Islam generate such a following because they have so violently oppressed any alternative view points within the religion. This creates a stronger base; by keeping "on message" they seem to have a very plausible reality. The problem with the world is not religion; it is the religions the survived due to their brutality, specifically Christianity and Islam.
QUOTE
And I wouldn't say the Mohammed cartoons were trashing religion either - but looks like it had the same effect.
I don't know how showing the prophet of the religion wearing a turban shaped like a bomb, implying that the religion is all about terrorism is not trashing that religion? One could argue that it is supposed to be so over the top offensive as to be funny and not serious, but thats hard to expect when you publish something in a newspaper with such a widespread audience. At any rate what Grendle said is nothing as disrespectful as the cartoons. I didn't find it offensive at all, and maybe you did a bit.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
And I wouldn't say the Mohammed cartoons were trashing religion either - but looks like it had the same effect. |
I don't know how showing the prophet of the religion wearing a turban shaped like a bomb, implying that the religion is all about terrorism is not trashing that religion? One could argue that it is supposed to be so over the top offensive as to be funny and not serious, but thats hard to expect when you publish something in a newspaper with such a widespread audience. At any rate what Grendle said is nothing as disrespectful as the cartoons. I didn't find it offensive at all, and maybe you did a bit.
Evolution says the purpose is survival. That's not good enough for me.
You appear to be looking for a purpose - but there is none according to the theory of evolution, other than to survive. The purposes you describe are all about self-gratification - an atheistic point of view that lacks conviction. Materialism, naturalism, methodical, patternism, etc.
And thats where your religion comes in for you. And as has been stated many times, evolution doesn't try to address purpose. It leaves that to everyone to decide on their own. Evolution allows some sort of free thinking, where as your purpose is force fed to you. Also, it has been pointed out that the non believing people here still feel their is a purpose to their life, its just not the same as what you feel the purpose is.
QUOTE
Evolution does not give a meaning to life, but our lives are still meaningful. When I look at my girlfriend, for example, it does not matter whether she's the product of millions of years of development and growth, or was conjured out of the sky by God. Either way, she is still beautiful and unique and special, and has transformed me, my life and my view of the world. Feelings like that, whether divine or biochemical, are surely meaningful either way?
Someone seems to be practicing their valentine's day speech....speaking of valentines day....I better go out and buy a present.....hehe
Steveo,
I tried that one a few months ago, during a moment of introspection. She didn't seem to have a clue what I was on about! (I have a nasty tendency to witter incoherently, y'see). I think I'll let the bracelet and Italian meal speak for themselves.
Kaeroll
I tried that one a few months ago, during a moment of introspection. She didn't seem to have a clue what I was on about!
(I have a nasty tendency to witter incoherently, y'see). I think I'll let the bracelet and Italian meal speak for themselves. Kaeroll
Hey Thomas!
True Christianity died before the Council. Originally it was a sect of Judism. So far as I have EVER been able to determine, Jesus had no intention of starting another religion. He was an adept of the Magi. He was a devout Jew. I have always told folks if they want to follow the example of Jesus, they should be good Jews. They don't want to hear it. That is OK. When it comes to God, we are all blind men touching an elephant. I wouldn't worry. God made us AS WE ARE and we return whence we came. It's very good.
True Christianity died before the Council. Originally it was a sect of Judism. So far as I have EVER been able to determine, Jesus had no intention of starting another religion. He was an adept of the Magi. He was a devout Jew. I have always told folks if they want to follow the example of Jesus, they should be good Jews. They don't want to hear it. That is OK. When it comes to God, we are all blind men touching an elephant. I wouldn't worry. God made us AS WE ARE and we return whence we came. It's very good.
QUOTE
So far as I have EVER been able to determine, Jesus had no intention of starting another religion... ... He was a devout Jew.
I respectfully disagree. Though I do find it strange the Jesus did not insist that his views be written down immediately (whether he was divine or just enlightened he should have known that anything he said could be easily manipulated if it wasn't written down), I believe much of Mark to represent His actual teachings. If this is true, then He taught of a "good" far different then the Jewish God. This massive discrepancy wasn't even "solved" until much after the Council of Nicea, and is still the source of much debate.
The only explanation that seems to fix is that Jesus was a polytheist. This of course has been edited out. But polytheism was not extinct from Judaism at that time; it could be argued that modern Judaism is also not monotheistic. I have to agree with the Gnostic explanation of Jesus, it seems to make much more since than any other's I've heard. Though I don't like the heavy duality of Gnosticism.
The more I figure out the less I know. It also seems very likely that Jesus followed the Kabbalah tradition of Judaism. I don't think that modern revivals of Gnosticism, Kabbalah, Hermeticism, or any other modern esoteric tradition successfully replicate the old traditions. There is so much that is still lost. We may never know. But then again the Nag Hammandi and the Dead Sea Scrolls came back to us, who knows what else we will find one day? But currently there are just too many dead ends.
Fascinating...
I'll make no bones about the fact that I don't particularily like organized religion, specifically the institutions there of, but trust me, if I decide to "trash all religion" it will be obvious to everyone
Indeed compared to many on the "science side" on this board, I think it could safetly be said I have a soft spot for religious belief. I'm not calling it a fairy tale and all who follow them deluded. Nor have I claimed the head of any particular religion is the antichrist, or that all other faiths but one are pathways to damnation as have some.
I simply drew attention to percieved parrallels between some fundamentalist christian sects and some gnostics.
You will not I did not say all religion
I did not say all Christians.
I did not say "Messenger"
You will also note I did not equate Gnosticism with something bad.
The one clearly implied negative opinion was against those whose concern for the next life detracts from their ability to relate to this one. I believe I even uses the phrase "so obsessed" to indicate an extreme, unbalanced, unhealthy concern for "what happens next."
There is a great deal in the gnostic tradition I find interesting, even enlightening. The same can be said for main stream christianity.
I find the parralells ironic because many of those that exhibit these tendencies are the very people most likely to consider the gnostic tradition something theologically unpleasant, to say the least.
Cheers
I'll make no bones about the fact that I don't particularily like organized religion, specifically the institutions there of, but trust me, if I decide to "trash all religion" it will be obvious to everyone
Indeed compared to many on the "science side" on this board, I think it could safetly be said I have a soft spot for religious belief. I'm not calling it a fairy tale and all who follow them deluded. Nor have I claimed the head of any particular religion is the antichrist, or that all other faiths but one are pathways to damnation as have some.
I simply drew attention to percieved parrallels between some fundamentalist christian sects and some gnostics.
You will not I did not say all religion
I did not say all Christians.
I did not say "Messenger"
You will also note I did not equate Gnosticism with something bad.
The one clearly implied negative opinion was against those whose concern for the next life detracts from their ability to relate to this one. I believe I even uses the phrase "so obsessed" to indicate an extreme, unbalanced, unhealthy concern for "what happens next."
There is a great deal in the gnostic tradition I find interesting, even enlightening. The same can be said for main stream christianity.
I find the parralells ironic because many of those that exhibit these tendencies are the very people most likely to consider the gnostic tradition something theologically unpleasant, to say the least.
Cheers
Messenger,
And you think that 'being approved for next life' is better purpose then? What will be the purpose of that next life? If it have a purpose, why this purpose cannot be targeted in your current life?
QUOTE
Evolution says the purpose is survival. That's not good enough for me.
You appear to be looking for a purpose - but there is none according to the theory of evolution, other than to survive. The purposes you describe are all about self-gratification - an atheistic point of view that lacks conviction. Materialism, naturalism, methodical, patternism, etc.
You appear to be looking for a purpose - but there is none according to the theory of evolution, other than to survive. The purposes you describe are all about self-gratification - an atheistic point of view that lacks conviction. Materialism, naturalism, methodical, patternism, etc.
And you think that 'being approved for next life' is better purpose then? What will be the purpose of that next life? If it have a purpose, why this purpose cannot be targeted in your current life?
QUOTE
There is a great deal in the gnostic tradition I find interesting, even enlightening. The same can be said for main stream christianity.
That is one of the most reasonable statements I've read in a while, Grendle. One of the best things about not embracing a singular faith is that it frees me to find the good in ALL faiths (and reject the bad in each as well), which is something that is difficult for most adherents of religion (especially monotheistic faiths that equate all other beliefs as inspired by an evil force).
Yes, polytheism was a part of Judism.
There were two temples dedicated to the Hosts of Heaven flanking The Temple. There were vessels dedicated to Baal in the Temple. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" did not mean there ARE no other gods. It meant, Jehova is the High God.
There were two temples dedicated to the Hosts of Heaven flanking The Temple. There were vessels dedicated to Baal in the Temple. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" did not mean there ARE no other gods. It meant, Jehova is the High God.
QUOTE
...did not mean there ARE no other gods. It meant, Jehova is the High God.
Or YHWH was the god that would smite you if you dared listen to another god.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| ...did not mean there ARE no other gods. It meant, Jehova is the High God. |
Or YHWH was the god that would smite you if you dared listen to another god.
Ebionites believe that monotheism disallows a belief in a "Satan" that competes with God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionite
I would like to see people come up with a religion that used the best parts of Christianity, Gnosticism, Buddhism, and Hinduism. It seems to me that the all have very positive parts to them that the others lack, but they all have very negative aspects also. I would also be nice if it could be proven that Jesus' teachings differed significantly from Christianity. But we can't even convince Christians that Christianity is different from what the Bible says:
QUOTE
23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Matthew 19:23-24
Messenger Posted: Feb 8 2006, 03:10 AM
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 23Then Jesus said to his disciples, "I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. 24Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." |
Matthew 19:23-24
Messenger Posted: Feb 8 2006, 03:10 AM Jesus does not desire that people be poor. God expects you to increase the talents you have been given (talent = skill or money).
The camel story is a story - a parable. It is not meant to be taken literally. Jesus is simply trying to point out that a rich person who is not a loving and giving person will struggle to enter the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God is within you.
Thomas the Gardener Posted: Feb 8 2006, 06:52 PM
QUOTE
How ever you choose to justify it to yourself. It seems simple enough to me. Humbleness, meekness, I guess those are just two more virtues central to Jesus' teachings that Christians have found excuses to get around. So are there any of Jesus’ teachings that you people still follow?
Oh so that’s the one story that is not meant to be taken literally. Meanwhile Moses putting 2 of every animal on the ark (although this differs from even the Torah), is meant to be taken literally.
Oh so that’s the one story that is not meant to be taken literally. Meanwhile Moses putting 2 of every animal on the ark (although this differs from even the Torah), is meant to be taken literally.
It seems that people will just believe what ever they want to believe, and damn anyone who wants to use "logic" there's no place for logic in the Bible. This is the truly awful part. You don’t even have to suppress the writings of a prophet to prevent people from learning from what they say. You can give them the very words the prophet said, and then give them a whole lot of misinformation about what it means. Because god forbid any Christian read the Bible and make up their own mind about it, yeah, I think the Catholic Church actually said at one time that God did forbid it.
Hmmm.......where do I begin?
GS,
First sentence - I Agree. Second sentence - No.
But I am with the Muslims on being totally against disrespectful media, cartoons and other 'art forms' portraying religions in a negative way.
There is freedom of the press - with responsibility. Freedom of the press is supposed to give you the freedom to criticize your government, but it is not an avenue to ridicule and degrade people's religious beliefs.
GS,
First sentence - I Agree. Second sentence - No.
But I am with the Muslims on being totally against disrespectful media, cartoons and other 'art forms' portraying religions in a negative way.
There is freedom of the press - with responsibility. Freedom of the press is supposed to give you the freedom to criticize your government, but it is not an avenue to ridicule and degrade people's religious beliefs.
QUOTE
me: Evolution says the purpose is survival. That's not good enough for me.
You appear to be looking for a purpose - but there is none according to the theory of evolution, other than to survive.
you: Nor does evolution even attempt to address any purpose in the manner you mean. Evolution addresses how life develops and changes over time. The view of survival is important, but considering that evolution does not seek to address purpose in the way you mean, the topic is a non sequitur.
GS,
You keep changing your opinions to suit your mood. You are inconsistent in your beliefs. Evolution does this, it doesn't do this - but only in certain circumstances.
I couldn't care less if evolution addresses 'purpose'. The point is that evolution leads people down a path that leads them to believe there is no purpose. The net effect is atheism, naturalism, and other 'isms.
GS,
Self-gratification comes and goes, it is part of being human - but when deliberate thought precedes an action performed by a loving Christian - self is placed 2nd or 3rd - while others are placed first. This is not a martyr effect - this is love. When a Christian puts another person in first place - it's because they want them to receive the love of God - like they have received it.
No, evolutionists have various methods of placing themselves above animals. The only legitimate claim a 'good' evolutionist could make is the one that says they are equal with all creatures. Some do this. But it is still wrong. Why? Besides the obvious that it goes against what I believe (based on the Bible)? Animals simply do not compare to humans on any level.
If a theist equates us with animals, he is surely a misguided theist - who must also be an evolutionist.
GS,
Self-gratification comes and goes, it is part of being human - but when deliberate thought precedes an action performed by a loving Christian - self is placed 2nd or 3rd - while others are placed first. This is not a martyr effect - this is love. When a Christian puts another person in first place - it's because they want them to receive the love of God - like they have received it.
No, evolutionists have various methods of placing themselves above animals. The only legitimate claim a 'good' evolutionist could make is the one that says they are equal with all creatures. Some do this. But it is still wrong. Why? Besides the obvious that it goes against what I believe (based on the Bible)? Animals simply do not compare to humans on any level.
If a theist equates us with animals, he is surely a misguided theist - who must also be an evolutionist.
QUOTE
me: They think they are superior to others, they lack humility and compassion. They believe they can provide for all their own needs. When they accomplish something, they think they did it. They don't see all the people, and even God, who worked behind the scenes. They don't appreciate the sacrifices of others.
you: And here is where your religion, limited views and assumption lead you astray in your attempt at rational thought. A lack of humility or compassion is no crime nor is conceit unless you consider the spirit crimes of the xian religion. A person can do everything by themselves and rely upon no one and whatever they accomplish is indeed their own. You make an assumption that the xian god is a given and even if you assume such, that the xian god is actively involved in everything man does.
GS,
Garbage!
Not self-righteous. Righteous. Big difference. The desire to introduce you to God is their only motive. We hope that you will consider a deeper search for the one true God. If we are mistaken about the actual final destiny of sinners, well, we're sorry. One might say eternal torture in burning hell, I might say eternal death and seperation from God. But either way, you don't want to go there.
Not self-righteous. Righteous. Big difference. The desire to introduce you to God is their only motive. We hope that you will consider a deeper search for the one true God. If we are mistaken about the actual final destiny of sinners, well, we're sorry. One might say eternal torture in burning hell, I might say eternal death and seperation from God. But either way, you don't want to go there.
Take the opposite for example. Let say and athlete spends years training and goes to the Olympics and wins a medal. Invariable, thanking the xian god enters into the picture or it is mentioned the he or she is “blessed” by god with ability or some such acknowledgment that god had a hand in it. Yet if the same athlete fails to win, well then it must have been something he or she did. The athlete must have not trained hard enough or wanted it bad enough. It never seems that the xian god has anything to do with failure. Wonderfuly selective PR.
GS,
Prayers were answered for both Olympians. Just maybe not the way you or they want. Maybe the non medal winner received mercy from the Lord, and the medal winnder received punishment.
Ever think that God has a reason to answer one prayer one way, and another prayer a different way?
You are not wise enough to know how the Lord operates. No one is. You, an immature and unrepentant sinner, can say 'well, I don't want to know Him then - if He doesn't come to me on my terms - then the heck with Him!' That's your choice, one you made of your own free will. You have to live with it.
You are here on this planet to show God your character, to come to know Him, to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior - so that you may receive eternal life. A gift, one you accept of your own free will. Are you pro-choice in this area? Or are you going to abort this mission, and receive the wages of sin (death)?
El_Machinae,
God created us with a 'survival gene'. God created us in His image - male and female, family, etc. That explains that........
If people thought the only goal was to get to heaven - then everyone would commit suicide (anyone know a radical group that practices this?).
We have a purpose - given to us by God. Our purpose is to show God your character, to come to know Him, to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior - so that you may receive eternal life. A gift from God to you.
El_Machinae,
God created us with a 'survival gene'. God created us in His image - male and female, family, etc. That explains that........
If people thought the only goal was to get to heaven - then everyone would commit suicide (anyone know a radical group that practices this?).
We have a purpose - given to us by God. Our purpose is to show God your character, to come to know Him, to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior - so that you may receive eternal life. A gift from God to you.
Christianity and Islam generate such a following because they have so violently oppressed any alternative view points within the religion. This creates a stronger base; by keeping "on message" they seem to have a very plausible reality. The problem with the world is not religion; it is the religions the survived due to their brutality, specifically Christianity and Islam.
This is a false statement.
God draws people to Himself. If we accept His call, if we open the door and let Him into our heart - then we become a changed person. We do not desire to kill people, we only desire to bring others into the loving relationship that God offers. When one has God in their heart - they are lifted above the petty disagreements between religions - and they are united in the saving grace of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The rest is just details and make for a good debate.
Steveo,
Evolution allows free thinking? Try to tell them that you think people were evolved from an entirely different origin - and see how free thinking 'they' are!
My religion, my God, sets me free! I am no longer a slave to sin. I am free to choose how I will live my life, I can see clearly what the consequences are to my choices. You have no such freedom.
You may think that learning/doing/teaching physics is your purpose, or that having premarital sex is your right and purpose. But do you know what the consequences are?
If you were a Christian - you would know that premarital sex leads only to romantic love, and not to oneness. If you were Christian and you were married first, before having sex, you would know that there is no better or more fulfilling sex to be experienced. There is great freedom and pleasure in knowing that what you are doing is pleasing in God's sight. It's not like He doesn't know what you're doing, ya know. Oh, and He did invent sex by the way.
My advice to you would be to study Christianity so thoroughly, and so completely, that there is no doubt in your mind that it is either true or not true. After all, there are great consequences to your conclusions.
Steveo,
Evolution allows free thinking? Try to tell them that you think people were evolved from an entirely different origin - and see how free thinking 'they' are!
My religion, my God, sets me free! I am no longer a slave to sin. I am free to choose how I will live my life, I can see clearly what the consequences are to my choices. You have no such freedom.
You may think that learning/doing/teaching physics is your purpose, or that having premarital sex is your right and purpose. But do you know what the consequences are?
If you were a Christian - you would know that premarital sex leads only to romantic love, and not to oneness. If you were Christian and you were married first, before having sex, you would know that there is no better or more fulfilling sex to be experienced. There is great freedom and pleasure in knowing that what you are doing is pleasing in God's sight. It's not like He doesn't know what you're doing, ya know. Oh, and He did invent sex by the way.
My advice to you would be to study Christianity so thoroughly, and so completely, that there is no doubt in your mind that it is either true or not true. After all, there are great consequences to your conclusions.
The one clearly implied negative opinion was against those whose concern for the next life detracts from their ability to relate to this one. I believe I even uses the phrase "so obsessed" to indicate an extreme, unbalanced, unhealthy concern for "what happens next."
Grendle,
Whatever your occupation is, or however you choose to spend your time; I sincerely hope that you enjoy yourself. A scientist becomes a scientist for a reason - they do not waste their lives by doing so. A passionate Christian is passionate because God is passionate about them.
There are extreme scientists who do extreme things. Then there's the other 95% who act rationally. But I would not like to be without the irrational, I think, they keep us on our toes. A little less extremeness would be good, perhaps.
Upisoft,
I can think of no higher purpose. I think, in a way, our next life's purpose may be a result of how we develop in this life. (However, if this is true, I better get busy and find my niche). You will achieve happiness in this life if you follow your dreams (normally) - perhaps these dreams are part of your eternal purpose. Then again, maybe not. I really don't know, but I'm looking forward to finding out.
Upisoft,
I can think of no higher purpose. I think, in a way, our next life's purpose may be a result of how we develop in this life. (However, if this is true, I better get busy and find my niche). You will achieve happiness in this life if you follow your dreams (normally) - perhaps these dreams are part of your eternal purpose. Then again, maybe not. I really don't know, but I'm looking forward to finding out.
Yes, polytheism was a part of Judism.
There were two temples dedicated to the Hosts of Heaven flanking The Temple. There were vessels dedicated to Baal in the Temple. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" did not mean there ARE no other gods. It meant, Jehova is the High God.
OdinsAcolyte,
Every hear about Ahab and Jezebel in the Bible? Maybe you should read their story before you make this type of bold statement. God showed, through Elijah the prophet, that Baal was powerless, and not a god at all. There is only one God.
....................
.....and finally,
Thomas the Gardener,
It should be obvious that the camel story is a parable.
Humble and meek are characteristics that we can all strive to maintain.
Bye for now,
I have. By your rhetoric I can tell that you must be protestant, likely evangelical. So why doesn't your church include any Gnostic texts? I mean every book in the Bible can only be traced indirectly to an apostle, some of the Gnostic texts take it straight form the horse's mouth. You are clueless about your religion. You have a virus. That virus infects your mind and seeks to pass its self to others. Your pointless banter adds nothing to the conversation. But that is typical of what I always hear from evangelicals. You can't debate the substance of your religion so you retreat to the talking points.
Sorry but I’m going to respond to what I see immediately available to me. I am not going to research all your post before answering what I see as useless dribble. Sure I have seen some amount of open mindedness in the past, but your posts here have been typical nonsense that adds no value to the discussion. Instead of going on and on about:
Sorry but I’m going to respond to what I see immediately available to me. I am not going to research all your post before answering what I see as useless dribble. Sure I have seen some amount of open mindedness in the past, but your posts here have been typical nonsense that adds no value to the discussion. Instead of going on and on about:
God draws people to Himself. If we accept His call, if we open the door and let Him into our heart - then we become a changed person. We do not desire to kill people, we only desire to bring others into the loving relationship that God offers. When one has God in their heart - they are lifted above the petty disagreements between religions - and they are united in the saving grace of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
This is just the most current belief structure of modern Christianity. In order to have any credibility it should have started with Jesus. But seeing that you have read the Gnostic texts you must understand that Jesus was not a God. If he told his apostles that he was God, why did so many of them go on record to say he was not? The whole God thing was started by the Catholic Church many centuries later.
You people always use this line but you don't know what it really means. You really think that sinners die earlier?
You people always use this line but you don't know what it really means. You really think that sinners die earlier?
If you were a Christian - you would know that premarital sex leads only to romantic love, and not to oneness. If you were Christian and you were married first, before having sex, you would know that there is no better or more fulfilling sex to be experienced. There is great freedom and pleasure in knowing that what you are doing is pleasing in God's sight. It's not like He doesn't know what you're doing, ya know. Oh, and He did invent sex by the way.
Why do I think this is garbage? I’ve known too many Christians, they can talk the talk, but they can’t walk the walk. That phrase pretty much sums up Christianity in general.
If you want to talk so much about your religion lets talk about its root. Modern Christianity is too far removed from its historical origins. The fact that Christianity has changed so much over its lifetime discredits much of the modern rhetoric. The more you learn about the early Christians the more you realize that your dribble is pointless, the more you learn about Jesus the more you realize that Christianity does not follow the teachings of Jesus. Please stop the proselytizing and engage is a useful discussion.
I would love to prove you wrong here.
I would love to prove you wrong here.
You so far have done nothing but criticize point by point with useless nonsense.
Useless nonsense? Please tell me where my logic is wrong. Give me one good reason why I should think that the modern corrupt version of Christianity is closer to the true teachings of Jesus than the Gnostics.
The forum is titled "historical accuracy of Christianity." How can modern Christians justify their view when it differs so much from the early Christians? How can modern Christians justify their views when it has also been used to justify slavery, wars, genocide, and torturer? How can modern Christianity follow the Bible when it is so obviously corrupted? Why do modern Christians differ so much from what we know of Jesus?
Before you people dictate why we should all be more like you, I want some answers other than the normal pointless rhetoric that is modern Christianity. If you want to use the Bible and modern Christian beliefs as a reference in the whole ID vs. EV debate I want some support for its validity. But Christianity can't even reconcile it's teachings with what we know of Jesus, then how can you claim that it adds anything to the discussion?
The forum is titled "historical accuracy of Christianity." How can modern Christians justify their view when it differs so much from the early Christians? How can modern Christians justify their views when it has also been used to justify slavery, wars, genocide, and torturer? How can modern Christianity follow the Bible when it is so obviously corrupted? Why do modern Christians differ so much from what we know of Jesus?
Before you people dictate why we should all be more like you, I want some answers other than the normal pointless rhetoric that is modern Christianity. If you want to use the Bible and modern Christian beliefs as a reference in the whole ID vs. EV debate I want some support for its validity. But Christianity can't even reconcile it's teachings with what we know of Jesus, then how can you claim that it adds anything to the discussion?
And if you've studied so completely and so thoroughly - what conclusion have you come to?
Unfortunately it is a whole lot easier proving something wrong than proving something to be true. I can prove that modern Christianity is wrong. That does not invalidate the teachings of Jesus. There is no way around the fact that Jesus' teachings offer a very good template for us all. Christianity is corrupted. The study of its history leads to the conclusion pretty quickly. Then the question is; how do I try to find what Jesus' teachings really where? The Gnostics offer a good start if only because the Church tried so hard to suppress them. My gut feeling is that, though the Gnostic texts offer much more incite into Jesus, they do not complete the story and are wrong on some points; but that is only a gut feeling. There is still much more that is still lost. I would like to engage in a substantive discussion of who Jesus really was (using references that date to that time, and I would be happy to go over every book in the Bible with you to show you why they don't count, well except for Mark), I've long since grown tired of the pointless Bible thumping rhetoric that is modern Christianity, esp. evangelical Christianity.
QUOTE
The reactions of Muslims over the cartoons are a prime example of over-reacting and the inherent flaws in religious control. Are you saying that you over-reacted to Grendle’s comments?
GS,
First sentence - I Agree. Second sentence - No.
But I am with the Muslims on being totally against disrespectful media, cartoons and other 'art forms' portraying religions in a negative way.
There is freedom of the press - with responsibility. Freedom of the press is supposed to give you the freedom to criticize your government, but it is not an avenue to ridicule and degrade people's religious beliefs.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The reactions of Muslims over the cartoons are a prime example of over-reacting and the inherent flaws in religious control. Are you saying that you over-reacted to Grendle’s comments? |
GS,
First sentence - I Agree. Second sentence - No.
But I am with the Muslims on being totally against disrespectful media, cartoons and other 'art forms' portraying religions in a negative way.
There is freedom of the press - with responsibility. Freedom of the press is supposed to give you the freedom to criticize your government, but it is not an avenue to ridicule and degrade people's religious beliefs.
QUOTE
me: Evolution says the purpose is survival. That's not good enough for me.
You appear to be looking for a purpose - but there is none according to the theory of evolution, other than to survive.
you: Nor does evolution even attempt to address any purpose in the manner you mean. Evolution addresses how life develops and changes over time. The view of survival is important, but considering that evolution does not seek to address purpose in the way you mean, the topic is a non sequitur.
GS,
You keep changing your opinions to suit your mood. You are inconsistent in your beliefs. Evolution does this, it doesn't do this - but only in certain circumstances.
I couldn't care less if evolution addresses 'purpose'. The point is that evolution leads people down a path that leads them to believe there is no purpose. The net effect is atheism, naturalism, and other 'isms.
QUOTE
Your vaulted religious outlook is also one of self-gratification. Be it through a self-depravation for the “next world” or the often encountered superior attitude of perceived self control based upon religious doctrine, it all comes down to self-gratification.
You seem to overlook that atheist or even supporters of evolution do not think we are “just animals” when it comes to social issues and contemplation of purpose. Thiest often try to extend that fact that we are just animals to impact negatively on human social issues and constructs.
You seem to overlook that atheist or even supporters of evolution do not think we are “just animals” when it comes to social issues and contemplation of purpose. Thiest often try to extend that fact that we are just animals to impact negatively on human social issues and constructs.
GS,
Self-gratification comes and goes, it is part of being human - but when deliberate thought precedes an action performed by a loving Christian - self is placed 2nd or 3rd - while others are placed first. This is not a martyr effect - this is love. When a Christian puts another person in first place - it's because they want them to receive the love of God - like they have received it.
No, evolutionists have various methods of placing themselves above animals. The only legitimate claim a 'good' evolutionist could make is the one that says they are equal with all creatures. Some do this. But it is still wrong. Why? Besides the obvious that it goes against what I believe (based on the Bible)? Animals simply do not compare to humans on any level.
If a theist equates us with animals, he is surely a misguided theist - who must also be an evolutionist.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Your vaulted religious outlook is also one of self-gratification. Be it through a self-depravation for the “next world” or the often encountered superior attitude of perceived self control based upon religious doctrine, it all comes down to self-gratification. You seem to overlook that atheist or even supporters of evolution do not think we are “just animals” when it comes to social issues and contemplation of purpose. Thiest often try to extend that fact that we are just animals to impact negatively on human social issues and constructs. |
GS,
Self-gratification comes and goes, it is part of being human - but when deliberate thought precedes an action performed by a loving Christian - self is placed 2nd or 3rd - while others are placed first. This is not a martyr effect - this is love. When a Christian puts another person in first place - it's because they want them to receive the love of God - like they have received it.
No, evolutionists have various methods of placing themselves above animals. The only legitimate claim a 'good' evolutionist could make is the one that says they are equal with all creatures. Some do this. But it is still wrong. Why? Besides the obvious that it goes against what I believe (based on the Bible)? Animals simply do not compare to humans on any level.
If a theist equates us with animals, he is surely a misguided theist - who must also be an evolutionist.
QUOTE
me: They think they are superior to others, they lack humility and compassion. They believe they can provide for all their own needs. When they accomplish something, they think they did it. They don't see all the people, and even God, who worked behind the scenes. They don't appreciate the sacrifices of others.
you: And here is where your religion, limited views and assumption lead you astray in your attempt at rational thought. A lack of humility or compassion is no crime nor is conceit unless you consider the spirit crimes of the xian religion. A person can do everything by themselves and rely upon no one and whatever they accomplish is indeed their own. You make an assumption that the xian god is a given and even if you assume such, that the xian god is actively involved in everything man does.
GS,
Garbage!
QUOTE
Also speaking of the self-righteous, let us not overlook the theists in this discussion. How many of the faithful have come here and, with a self-righteous attitude, told everyone who is not of their faith of the harm, wrong and eventual torture they will endure due to their lack of theism in general or a specific theism? Self-righteous behavior is far from being a factor of just the attitude of an atheist.
Not self-righteous. Righteous. Big difference. The desire to introduce you to God is their only motive. We hope that you will consider a deeper search for the one true God. If we are mistaken about the actual final destiny of sinners, well, we're sorry. One might say eternal torture in burning hell, I might say eternal death and seperation from God. But either way, you don't want to go there.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Also speaking of the self-righteous, let us not overlook the theists in this discussion. How many of the faithful have come here and, with a self-righteous attitude, told everyone who is not of their faith of the harm, wrong and eventual torture they will endure due to their lack of theism in general or a specific theism? Self-righteous behavior is far from being a factor of just the attitude of an atheist. |
Not self-righteous. Righteous. Big difference. The desire to introduce you to God is their only motive. We hope that you will consider a deeper search for the one true God. If we are mistaken about the actual final destiny of sinners, well, we're sorry. One might say eternal torture in burning hell, I might say eternal death and seperation from God. But either way, you don't want to go there.
Take the opposite for example. Let say and athlete spends years training and goes to the Olympics and wins a medal. Invariable, thanking the xian god enters into the picture or it is mentioned the he or she is “blessed” by god with ability or some such acknowledgment that god had a hand in it. Yet if the same athlete fails to win, well then it must have been something he or she did. The athlete must have not trained hard enough or wanted it bad enough. It never seems that the xian god has anything to do with failure. Wonderfuly selective PR.
GS,
Prayers were answered for both Olympians. Just maybe not the way you or they want. Maybe the non medal winner received mercy from the Lord, and the medal winnder received punishment.
Ever think that God has a reason to answer one prayer one way, and another prayer a different way?
You are not wise enough to know how the Lord operates. No one is. You, an immature and unrepentant sinner, can say 'well, I don't want to know Him then - if He doesn't come to me on my terms - then the heck with Him!' That's your choice, one you made of your own free will. You have to live with it.
You are here on this planet to show God your character, to come to know Him, to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior - so that you may receive eternal life. A gift, one you accept of your own free will. Are you pro-choice in this area? Or are you going to abort this mission, and receive the wages of sin (death)?
QUOTE
Survival sure ranks up there. When it comes down to the brass tacks, survival becomes the most important thing to most people. Given the 'test of extremes', it seems to be the most important thing to most people.
Survival of ourselves is followed closely by survival of our family. Evolution really does explain that ...
Survival of ourselves is followed closely by survival of our family. Evolution really does explain that ...
El_Machinae,
God created us with a 'survival gene'. God created us in His image - male and female, family, etc. That explains that........
If people thought the only goal was to get to heaven - then everyone would commit suicide (anyone know a radical group that practices this?).
We have a purpose - given to us by God. Our purpose is to show God your character, to come to know Him, to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior - so that you may receive eternal life. A gift from God to you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Survival sure ranks up there. When it comes down to the brass tacks, survival becomes the most important thing to most people. Given the 'test of extremes', it seems to be the most important thing to most people. Survival of ourselves is followed closely by survival of our family. Evolution really does explain that ... |
El_Machinae,
God created us with a 'survival gene'. God created us in His image - male and female, family, etc. That explains that........
If people thought the only goal was to get to heaven - then everyone would commit suicide (anyone know a radical group that practices this?).
We have a purpose - given to us by God. Our purpose is to show God your character, to come to know Him, to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior - so that you may receive eternal life. A gift from God to you.
Christianity and Islam generate such a following because they have so violently oppressed any alternative view points within the religion. This creates a stronger base; by keeping "on message" they seem to have a very plausible reality. The problem with the world is not religion; it is the religions the survived due to their brutality, specifically Christianity and Islam.
This is a false statement.
God draws people to Himself. If we accept His call, if we open the door and let Him into our heart - then we become a changed person. We do not desire to kill people, we only desire to bring others into the loving relationship that God offers. When one has God in their heart - they are lifted above the petty disagreements between religions - and they are united in the saving grace of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The rest is just details and make for a good debate.
QUOTE
And thats where your religion comes in for you. And as has been stated many times, evolution doesn't try to address purpose. It leaves that to everyone to decide on their own. Evolution allows some sort of free thinking, where as your purpose is force fed to you. Also, it has been pointed out that the non believing people here still feel their is a purpose to their life, its just not the same as what you feel the purpose is.
Steveo,
Evolution allows free thinking? Try to tell them that you think people were evolved from an entirely different origin - and see how free thinking 'they' are!
My religion, my God, sets me free! I am no longer a slave to sin. I am free to choose how I will live my life, I can see clearly what the consequences are to my choices. You have no such freedom.
You may think that learning/doing/teaching physics is your purpose, or that having premarital sex is your right and purpose. But do you know what the consequences are?
If you were a Christian - you would know that premarital sex leads only to romantic love, and not to oneness. If you were Christian and you were married first, before having sex, you would know that there is no better or more fulfilling sex to be experienced. There is great freedom and pleasure in knowing that what you are doing is pleasing in God's sight. It's not like He doesn't know what you're doing, ya know. Oh, and He did invent sex by the way.
My advice to you would be to study Christianity so thoroughly, and so completely, that there is no doubt in your mind that it is either true or not true. After all, there are great consequences to your conclusions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And thats where your religion comes in for you. And as has been stated many times, evolution doesn't try to address purpose. It leaves that to everyone to decide on their own. Evolution allows some sort of free thinking, where as your purpose is force fed to you. Also, it has been pointed out that the non believing people here still feel their is a purpose to their life, its just not the same as what you feel the purpose is. |
Steveo,
Evolution allows free thinking? Try to tell them that you think people were evolved from an entirely different origin - and see how free thinking 'they' are!
My religion, my God, sets me free! I am no longer a slave to sin. I am free to choose how I will live my life, I can see clearly what the consequences are to my choices. You have no such freedom.
You may think that learning/doing/teaching physics is your purpose, or that having premarital sex is your right and purpose. But do you know what the consequences are?
If you were a Christian - you would know that premarital sex leads only to romantic love, and not to oneness. If you were Christian and you were married first, before having sex, you would know that there is no better or more fulfilling sex to be experienced. There is great freedom and pleasure in knowing that what you are doing is pleasing in God's sight. It's not like He doesn't know what you're doing, ya know. Oh, and He did invent sex by the way.
My advice to you would be to study Christianity so thoroughly, and so completely, that there is no doubt in your mind that it is either true or not true. After all, there are great consequences to your conclusions.
The one clearly implied negative opinion was against those whose concern for the next life detracts from their ability to relate to this one. I believe I even uses the phrase "so obsessed" to indicate an extreme, unbalanced, unhealthy concern for "what happens next."
Grendle,
Whatever your occupation is, or however you choose to spend your time; I sincerely hope that you enjoy yourself. A scientist becomes a scientist for a reason - they do not waste their lives by doing so. A passionate Christian is passionate because God is passionate about them.
There are extreme scientists who do extreme things. Then there's the other 95% who act rationally. But I would not like to be without the irrational, I think, they keep us on our toes. A little less extremeness would be good, perhaps.
QUOTE
And you think that 'being approved for next life' is better purpose then? What will be the purpose of that next life? If it have a purpose, why this purpose cannot be targeted in your current life?
Upisoft,
I can think of no higher purpose. I think, in a way, our next life's purpose may be a result of how we develop in this life. (However, if this is true, I better get busy and find my niche). You will achieve happiness in this life if you follow your dreams (normally) - perhaps these dreams are part of your eternal purpose. Then again, maybe not. I really don't know, but I'm looking forward to finding out.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And you think that 'being approved for next life' is better purpose then? What will be the purpose of that next life? If it have a purpose, why this purpose cannot be targeted in your current life? |
Upisoft,
I can think of no higher purpose. I think, in a way, our next life's purpose may be a result of how we develop in this life. (However, if this is true, I better get busy and find my niche). You will achieve happiness in this life if you follow your dreams (normally) - perhaps these dreams are part of your eternal purpose. Then again, maybe not. I really don't know, but I'm looking forward to finding out.
Yes, polytheism was a part of Judism.
There were two temples dedicated to the Hosts of Heaven flanking The Temple. There were vessels dedicated to Baal in the Temple. "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" did not mean there ARE no other gods. It meant, Jehova is the High God.
OdinsAcolyte,
Every hear about Ahab and Jezebel in the Bible? Maybe you should read their story before you make this type of bold statement. God showed, through Elijah the prophet, that Baal was powerless, and not a god at all. There is only one God.
....................
.....and finally,
Thomas the Gardener,
It should be obvious that the camel story is a parable.
Humble and meek are characteristics that we can all strive to maintain.
Bye for now,
QUOTE
My advice to you would be to study Christianity so thoroughly, and so completely, that there is no doubt in your mind that it is either true or not true. After all, there are great consequences to your conclusions.
I have. By your rhetoric I can tell that you must be protestant, likely evangelical. So why doesn't your church include any Gnostic texts? I mean every book in the Bible can only be traced indirectly to an apostle, some of the Gnostic texts take it straight form the horse's mouth. You are clueless about your religion. You have a virus. That virus infects your mind and seeks to pass its self to others. Your pointless banter adds nothing to the conversation. But that is typical of what I always hear from evangelicals. You can't debate the substance of your religion so you retreat to the talking points.
Thomas,
No rhetoric here, only truth.
If anyone studies the gnostic texts around here it's me. If you're going to criticize someone - at least be sure of what you're doing. Go back and read some of my posts.
Yes I'm protestant, yes I'm evangelical. But I'm also one who leans towards preterism (which I've explained already), which my church does not (but thanks to me they are now looking into it).
You so far have done nothing but criticize point by point with useless nonsense.
Why are you here - and what is it you want to debate or talk about?
And if you've studied so completely and so thoroughly - what conclusion have you come to?
No rhetoric here, only truth.
If anyone studies the gnostic texts around here it's me. If you're going to criticize someone - at least be sure of what you're doing. Go back and read some of my posts.
Yes I'm protestant, yes I'm evangelical. But I'm also one who leans towards preterism (which I've explained already), which my church does not (but thanks to me they are now looking into it).
You so far have done nothing but criticize point by point with useless nonsense.
Why are you here - and what is it you want to debate or talk about?
And if you've studied so completely and so thoroughly - what conclusion have you come to?
QUOTE (Messenger+Feb 9 2006, 11:38 PM)
.
Why are you here - and what is it you want to debate or talk about?
Why is he here?
It's a science forum, he's probably tired of people coming here blaming scientists and science for wars, weapons, banning books, conspiracies against god etc etc.
What does he want to debate or talk about?
I'd bet he would like to hear one of the very vocal christian posters on this board put forth why Christianity is the proper and true religion like they claim, using references not just from the bible, but from the religions they indicate are inferior, wrong or false. ( that's beig charitable - no demand for objective scientific proof. Only what one can find from religious texts and practices. Theological and historical rather than scientific)
We hear a lot from folks coming on this board continously repeating the mantra " You are wrong I am right, I know the Truth." With any questions ignored or replied to with "If you did it right, you would know I speak Truth."
The question is, can they go beyond that? Never mind proving god exists, can they even make the small step of indicating why they think their religious belief is the right one?
Or is their only purpose for being here on a science forum to trash talk science, be rude and obnoxious?
Why are you here - and what is it you want to debate or talk about?
Why is he here?
It's a science forum, he's probably tired of people coming here blaming scientists and science for wars, weapons, banning books, conspiracies against god etc etc.
What does he want to debate or talk about?
I'd bet he would like to hear one of the very vocal christian posters on this board put forth why Christianity is the proper and true religion like they claim, using references not just from the bible, but from the religions they indicate are inferior, wrong or false. ( that's beig charitable - no demand for objective scientific proof. Only what one can find from religious texts and practices. Theological and historical rather than scientific)
We hear a lot from folks coming on this board continously repeating the mantra " You are wrong I am right, I know the Truth." With any questions ignored or replied to with "If you did it right, you would know I speak Truth."
The question is, can they go beyond that? Never mind proving god exists, can they even make the small step of indicating why they think their religious belief is the right one?
Or is their only purpose for being here on a science forum to trash talk science, be rude and obnoxious?
Messenger
I don't know about anyone else but this quote is complete nonsense to me. When a religion is talking it's young men into becoming cheap smart bombs by promising 72 virgins in the next life, when that religion sends mobs into the street because someone dared to criticize such behavior, when a religion blows up Budda's statue, which is older than the religion lighting the fuse and a world treasure, when a religion flies airplanes into buildings in New York, when a religion has no respect for a women's rights, when a religion teaches it's children lies and hatred and is bringing the world to the brink of conflagration it is very much the job of the press to cover that story, point out that evil and alert the world to that problem using any means necessary to do so including ridicule and sarcasm.
I am rapidly approaching agreement with Richard Dawkins that in our modern civilization of technological ability to kill masses of innocent people through the actions of a small number of of religious zealots we can no longer afford to allow such barbaric religious practices to continue unchecked. Hatred masked as religious teaching is not an exclusively Muslim characteristic. In our own country we have extremists preaching hatred against gays from the pulpit, we also have abortion clinics under attack by self rightious zealots and the Murrow building was bombed over precieved wrongs against David Koresh's madness.
It is the press's responsibility to bring these facts to the public, even if it must shock or offend in order to do so. The reactions in the muslim world are driven as much by a truth being driven home by the sarcastic and offensive cartoons as it is by the outrage of the cartoon itself. I think that the Muslim faith has brought this on themselves by failing to rid themselves of the primative mullas who have caused the violence throughout the world and if they fail to rectify the situation they are in danger of being removed from this world in the operation to remove the tumor on society that the extremists have become.
Grumpy
QUOTE
But I am with the Muslims on being totally against disrespectful media, cartoons and other 'art forms' portraying religions in a negative way.
There is freedom of the press - with responsibility. Freedom of the press is supposed to give you the freedom to criticize your government, but it is not an avenue to ridicule and degrade people's religious beliefs.
There is freedom of the press - with responsibility. Freedom of the press is supposed to give you the freedom to criticize your government, but it is not an avenue to ridicule and degrade people's religious beliefs.
I don't know about anyone else but this quote is complete nonsense to me. When a religion is talking it's young men into becoming cheap smart bombs by promising 72 virgins in the next life, when that religion sends mobs into the street because someone dared to criticize such behavior, when a religion blows up Budda's statue, which is older than the religion lighting the fuse and a world treasure, when a religion flies airplanes into buildings in New York, when a religion has no respect for a women's rights, when a religion teaches it's children lies and hatred and is bringing the world to the brink of conflagration it is very much the job of the press to cover that story, point out that evil and alert the world to that problem using any means necessary to do so including ridicule and sarcasm.
I am rapidly approaching agreement with Richard Dawkins that in our modern civilization of technological ability to kill masses of innocent people through the actions of a small number of of religious zealots we can no longer afford to allow such barbaric religious practices to continue unchecked. Hatred masked as religious teaching is not an exclusively Muslim characteristic. In our own country we have extremists preaching hatred against gays from the pulpit, we also have abortion clinics under attack by self rightious zealots and the Murrow building was bombed over precieved wrongs against David Koresh's madness.
It is the press's responsibility to bring these facts to the public, even if it must shock or offend in order to do so. The reactions in the muslim world are driven as much by a truth being driven home by the sarcastic and offensive cartoons as it is by the outrage of the cartoon itself. I think that the Muslim faith has brought this on themselves by failing to rid themselves of the primative mullas who have caused the violence throughout the world and if they fail to rectify the situation they are in danger of being removed from this world in the operation to remove the tumor on society that the extremists have become.
Grumpy
QUOTE
If anyone studies the gnostic texts around here it's me. If you're going to criticize someone - at least be sure of what you're doing. Go back and read some of my posts.
Sorry but I’m going to respond to what I see immediately available to me. I am not going to research all your post before answering what I see as useless dribble. Sure I have seen some amount of open mindedness in the past, but your posts here have been typical nonsense that adds no value to the discussion. Instead of going on and on about:
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If anyone studies the gnostic texts around here it's me. If you're going to criticize someone - at least be sure of what you're doing. Go back and read some of my posts. |
Sorry but I’m going to respond to what I see immediately available to me. I am not going to research all your post before answering what I see as useless dribble. Sure I have seen some amount of open mindedness in the past, but your posts here have been typical nonsense that adds no value to the discussion. Instead of going on and on about:
God draws people to Himself. If we accept His call, if we open the door and let Him into our heart - then we become a changed person. We do not desire to kill people, we only desire to bring others into the loving relationship that God offers. When one has God in their heart - they are lifted above the petty disagreements between religions - and they are united in the saving grace of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
This is just the most current belief structure of modern Christianity. In order to have any credibility it should have started with Jesus. But seeing that you have read the Gnostic texts you must understand that Jesus was not a God. If he told his apostles that he was God, why did so many of them go on record to say he was not? The whole God thing was started by the Catholic Church many centuries later.
QUOTE
Or are you going to abort this mission, and receive the wages of sin (death)?
You people always use this line but you don't know what it really means. You really think that sinners die earlier?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Or are you going to abort this mission, and receive the wages of sin (death)? |
You people always use this line but you don't know what it really means. You really think that sinners die earlier?
If you were a Christian - you would know that premarital sex leads only to romantic love, and not to oneness. If you were Christian and you were married first, before having sex, you would know that there is no better or more fulfilling sex to be experienced. There is great freedom and pleasure in knowing that what you are doing is pleasing in God's sight. It's not like He doesn't know what you're doing, ya know. Oh, and He did invent sex by the way.
Why do I think this is garbage? I’ve known too many Christians, they can talk the talk, but they can’t walk the walk. That phrase pretty much sums up Christianity in general.
If you want to talk so much about your religion lets talk about its root. Modern Christianity is too far removed from its historical origins. The fact that Christianity has changed so much over its lifetime discredits much of the modern rhetoric. The more you learn about the early Christians the more you realize that your dribble is pointless, the more you learn about Jesus the more you realize that Christianity does not follow the teachings of Jesus. Please stop the proselytizing and engage is a useful discussion.
QUOTE
But I'm also one who leans towards preterism
I would love to prove you wrong here.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But I'm also one who leans towards preterism |
I would love to prove you wrong here.
You so far have done nothing but criticize point by point with useless nonsense.
Useless nonsense? Please tell me where my logic is wrong. Give me one good reason why I should think that the modern corrupt version of Christianity is closer to the true teachings of Jesus than the Gnostics.
QUOTE
Why are you here - and what is it you want to debate or talk about?
The forum is titled "historical accuracy of Christianity." How can modern Christians justify their view when it differs so much from the early Christians? How can modern Christians justify their views when it has also been used to justify slavery, wars, genocide, and torturer? How can modern Christianity follow the Bible when it is so obviously corrupted? Why do modern Christians differ so much from what we know of Jesus?
Before you people dictate why we should all be more like you, I want some answers other than the normal pointless rhetoric that is modern Christianity. If you want to use the Bible and modern Christian beliefs as a reference in the whole ID vs. EV debate I want some support for its validity. But Christianity can't even reconcile it's teachings with what we know of Jesus, then how can you claim that it adds anything to the discussion?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why are you here - and what is it you want to debate or talk about? |
The forum is titled "historical accuracy of Christianity." How can modern Christians justify their view when it differs so much from the early Christians? How can modern Christians justify their views when it has also been used to justify slavery, wars, genocide, and torturer? How can modern Christianity follow the Bible when it is so obviously corrupted? Why do modern Christians differ so much from what we know of Jesus?
Before you people dictate why we should all be more like you, I want some answers other than the normal pointless rhetoric that is modern Christianity. If you want to use the Bible and modern Christian beliefs as a reference in the whole ID vs. EV debate I want some support for its validity. But Christianity can't even reconcile it's teachings with what we know of Jesus, then how can you claim that it adds anything to the discussion?
And if you've studied so completely and so thoroughly - what conclusion have you come to?
Unfortunately it is a whole lot easier proving something wrong than proving something to be true. I can prove that modern Christianity is wrong. That does not invalidate the teachings of Jesus. There is no way around the fact that Jesus' teachings offer a very good template for us all. Christianity is corrupted. The study of its history leads to the conclusion pretty quickly. Then the question is; how do I try to find what Jesus' teachings really where? The Gnostics offer a good start if only because the Church tried so hard to suppress them. My gut feeling is that, though the Gnostic texts offer much more incite into Jesus, they do not complete the story and are wrong on some points; but that is only a gut feeling. There is still much more that is still lost. I would like to engage in a substantive discussion of who Jesus really was (using references that date to that time, and I would be happy to go over every book in the Bible with you to show you why they don't count, well except for Mark), I've long since grown tired of the pointless Bible thumping rhetoric that is modern Christianity, esp. evangelical Christianity.
Messenger,
So you say you don't know what to expect in your next life. Yet you claim you know God. Well, ask Him!
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And you think that 'being approved for next life' is better purpose then? What will be the purpose of that next life? If it have a purpose, why this purpose cannot be targeted in your current life? I can think of no higher purpose. I think, in a way, our next life's purpose may be a result of how we develop in this life. (However, if this is true, I better get busy and find my niche). You will achieve happiness in this life if you follow your dreams (normally) - perhaps these dreams are part of your eternal purpose. Then again, maybe not. I really don't know, but I'm looking forward to finding out. |
So you say you don't know what to expect in your next life. Yet you claim you know God. Well, ask Him!
Psalm 89:6 (verse 7 in Hebrew) has:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28god%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28god%29
Though the god Hadad or Adad was especially likely to be called Ba‘al, Hadad was far from the only god to have that title. The Ugaritic texts (mainly preserved in the Baal cycle) place the dwelling of Ba‘al/Hadad on Mount Zephon, so one can probably take as evident that references to Ba‘al Zephon in the Tanach and in inscriptions and tablets refer to Hadad. It is said that Ba‘al Pe‘or, the Lord of Mount Pe‘or, whom Israelites were forbidden from worshipping (Numbers 1–25) was also Hadad. In the Canaanite pantheon, Hadad was the son of El, who had once been the primary god of the Canaanite pantheon, and whose name was also used interchangeably with that of the Hebrew god, Yahweh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal
Historically it really seems that the Jewish God is to Jerusalem as Athena was to Athens. Yahweh was the patron deity of the Jews.
"he demonization of Ba‘al Zebûb led to much of the modern religious personification of Satan, as the adversary of the Abrahamic god."
This whole thing is just so complicated, and there are so many pieces missing. But the moral of the story is that the common belief that Judaism is now and has always been monotheistic seems obviously wrong. This leads me to believe that the Gnostic "Origin of the World," does fall in line with old Jewish tradition.
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/origin.html
Yahweh is the angry, jealous, spiteful, vengeful, illegitimate child of Sophia. Yaldabaoth, Demiurge, Baal, El, Yahweh where all the same God. It is very hard to follow because there are so many names, but it seems that this particular religion was wide spread, but due to the different languages there where different names.
Freedom of the press, and of speech, is just that. The true test of which is the protection and support of unpopular press and speech. Are there certain expected responsibilities? One could argue that, but not by using such a fluid measure as “offensive”, “ridicule” or “degrade” as a gauge. We would end up with speech codes that allow jail terms for saying or typint the wrong thing in public.
Freedom of the press, and of speech, is just that. The true test of which is the protection and support of unpopular press and speech. Are there certain expected responsibilities? One could argue that, but not by using such a fluid measure as “offensive”, “ridicule” or “degrade” as a gauge. We would end up with speech codes that allow jail terms for saying or typint the wrong thing in public.
You keep changing your opinions to suit your mood. You are inconsistent in your beliefs. Evolution does this, it doesn't do this - but only in certain circumstances.
Actually, no, I have been quite consistent on what evolution addressees. You and other theist seek to inject subjects and meaning that evolution does not seek to address. One of which is your afore mentioned purpose to life akin to the one determined by theism.
Then why keep trying to make that exact claim? What you believe evolution does or does not do is also moot seeing as you keep misrepresenting what it seeks to begin with. As stated by myself and others, there are theist who also support evolution and some may even see a divine hand in it. Your claims are not supported by reality and go to address a point I made before about the fear of theists. Certain thoughts and theories are bad because they might lead to questioning the established word or a religion. When you must control thoughts to keep order, you can no longer claim to be working or operating with the interest of mankind in mind.
Then why keep trying to make that exact claim? What you believe evolution does or does not do is also moot seeing as you keep misrepresenting what it seeks to begin with. As stated by myself and others, there are theist who also support evolution and some may even see a divine hand in it. Your claims are not supported by reality and go to address a point I made before about the fear of theists. Certain thoughts and theories are bad because they might lead to questioning the established word or a religion. When you must control thoughts to keep order, you can no longer claim to be working or operating with the interest of mankind in mind.
Self-gratification comes and goes, it is part of being human - but when deliberate thought precedes an action performed by a loving Christian - self is placed 2nd or 3rd - while others are placed first. This is not a martyr effect - this is love. When a Christian puts another person in first place - it's because they want them to receive the love of God - like they have received it.
No, this is also self-gratification and your example is not one of just the actions of a theist. Any parent or person with a significant other puts themselves last in many situations. As you say, this is an act of love and has nothing to do with theism. But, your earlier claim is still false. Self-gratification is a driving force in what theist do.
No, you are confusing animal rights activists like P.E.T.A. with “evolutionists”.
No, you are confusing animal rights activists like P.E.T.A. with “evolutionists”.
Garbage!
Great counterpoint. Care to try again? Here is my comment again. Try to comment on the post this time with something of substance.
GS
And here is where your religion, limited views and assumption lead you astray in your attempt at rational thought. A lack of humility or compassion is no crime nor is conceit unless you consider the spirit crimes of the xian religion. A person can do everything by themselves and rely upon no one and whatever they accomplish is indeed their own. You make an assumption that the xian god is a given and even if you assume such, that the xian god is actively involved in everything man does.
Not self-righteous. Righteous. Big difference. The desire to introduce you to God is their only motive. We hope that you will consider a deeper search for the one true God. If we are mistaken about the actual final destiny of sinners, well, we're sorry. One might say eternal torture in burning hell, I might say eternal death and seperation from God. But either way, you don't want to go there.
No difference at all. Your god, contrary to what you keep claiming, is not a fact. Neither are all the other myriad of gods, goddesses, spirits, sprites, demons, pixies and dwellers of the ethereal realm(s). Therefore, your actions are that of a self-righteous individual in condemning others not of your faith. Again, you are free to believe what you will, but to force that onto others or to act from a false sense of superiority is the act of the self-righteous.
And again, stop also assuming and claiming that what you have to offer has not been thoroughly consider and rejected by some here. Accept the fact that there are those who find what you have to offer of no value.
Prayers were answered for both Olympians. Just maybe not the way you or they want. Maybe the non medal winner received mercy from the Lord, and the medal winnder received punishment.
And that is the answer of a self-righteous and arrogant religious zealot. Not only do you assume that you god is a given, but that he/she/it actively manipulates everyone’s life regardless of personal effort. Using this view, mankind is nothing more than a plaything to your deity. With that outlook in mind, perhaps now you will start to see why there are a growing number of people who question your superstition.
And that is the answer of a self-righteous and arrogant religious zealot. Not only do you assume that you god is a given, but that he/she/it actively manipulates everyone’s life regardless of personal effort. Using this view, mankind is nothing more than a plaything to your deity. With that outlook in mind, perhaps now you will start to see why there are a growing number of people who question your superstition.
You are not wise enough to know how the Lord operates. No one is.
You are right. No one is capable of knowing just how such a fluid deity and a fluid faith and superstition can and will be applied.
I love this. If you can’t beg them to follow the faith then insult them and mention again the damnation that awaits. Were we not just talking about the self-righteous theists an their condemnations? And one last point, the “free will” mention again. Yes you have free will, but choose wrong and you will burn for all eternity. Some free will and such love form this particular deity.
I love this. If you can’t beg them to follow the faith then insult them and mention again the damnation that awaits. Were we not just talking about the self-righteous theists an their condemnations? And one last point, the “free will” mention again. Yes you have free will, but choose wrong and you will burn for all eternity. Some free will and such love form this particular deity.
You are here on this planet to show God your character, to come to know Him, to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior - so that you may receive eternal life. A gift, one you accept of your own free will. Are you pro-choice in this area? Or are you going to abort this mission, and receive the wages of sin (death)?
Here’s another fact of your particular superstition Messenger. One that in exemplified by that last post of yours. Fear of the grave is why most people follow your superstition. It is also why so many people convert at the end of their life or on their “death beds”. Fear. It is that same fear that you and others are motivated by when you encounter people who question or simply reject what you have to offer.
QUOTE
For who in the skies compares to Yahweh,
who can be likened to Yahweh among the sons of gods
who can be likened to Yahweh among the sons of gods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28god%29
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| For who in the skies compares to Yahweh, who can be likened to Yahweh among the sons of gods |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_%28god%29
Though the god Hadad or Adad was especially likely to be called Ba‘al, Hadad was far from the only god to have that title. The Ugaritic texts (mainly preserved in the Baal cycle) place the dwelling of Ba‘al/Hadad on Mount Zephon, so one can probably take as evident that references to Ba‘al Zephon in the Tanach and in inscriptions and tablets refer to Hadad. It is said that Ba‘al Pe‘or, the Lord of Mount Pe‘or, whom Israelites were forbidden from worshipping (Numbers 1–25) was also Hadad. In the Canaanite pantheon, Hadad was the son of El, who had once been the primary god of the Canaanite pantheon, and whose name was also used interchangeably with that of the Hebrew god, Yahweh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal
Historically it really seems that the Jewish God is to Jerusalem as Athena was to Athens. Yahweh was the patron deity of the Jews.
QUOTE
At first the name Baal was used by the Jews for their God without discrimination, but as the struggle between the two religions developed, the name Baal was given up in Judaism as a thing of shame, and even names like Jerubbaal were changed to Jerubbesheth: Hebrew bosheth means "shame". Zondervan's Pictorial Bible Dictionary (1976) ISBN 031023560X
"he demonization of Ba‘al Zebûb led to much of the modern religious personification of Satan, as the adversary of the Abrahamic god."
This whole thing is just so complicated, and there are so many pieces missing. But the moral of the story is that the common belief that Judaism is now and has always been monotheistic seems obviously wrong. This leads me to believe that the Gnostic "Origin of the World," does fall in line with old Jewish tradition.
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/origin.html
Yahweh is the angry, jealous, spiteful, vengeful, illegitimate child of Sophia. Yaldabaoth, Demiurge, Baal, El, Yahweh where all the same God. It is very hard to follow because there are so many names, but it seems that this particular religion was wide spread, but due to the different languages there where different names.
Maybe you have something there - but Wikipedia is the last place I'd go for religious information - it's biased against religion.
QUOTE
But I am with the Muslims on being totally against disrespectful media, cartoons and other 'art forms' portraying religions in a negative way.
There is freedom of the press - with responsibility. Freedom of the press is supposed to give you the freedom to criticize your government, but it is not an avenue to ridicule and degrade people's religious beliefs.
There is freedom of the press - with responsibility. Freedom of the press is supposed to give you the freedom to criticize your government, but it is not an avenue to ridicule and degrade people's religious beliefs.
Freedom of the press, and of speech, is just that. The true test of which is the protection and support of unpopular press and speech. Are there certain expected responsibilities? One could argue that, but not by using such a fluid measure as “offensive”, “ridicule” or “degrade” as a gauge. We would end up with speech codes that allow jail terms for saying or typint the wrong thing in public.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But I am with the Muslims on being totally against disrespectful media, cartoons and other 'art forms' portraying religions in a negative way. There is freedom of the press - with responsibility. Freedom of the press is supposed to give you the freedom to criticize your government, but it is not an avenue to ridicule and degrade people's religious beliefs. |
Freedom of the press, and of speech, is just that. The true test of which is the protection and support of unpopular press and speech. Are there certain expected responsibilities? One could argue that, but not by using such a fluid measure as “offensive”, “ridicule” or “degrade” as a gauge. We would end up with speech codes that allow jail terms for saying or typint the wrong thing in public.
You keep changing your opinions to suit your mood. You are inconsistent in your beliefs. Evolution does this, it doesn't do this - but only in certain circumstances.
Actually, no, I have been quite consistent on what evolution addressees. You and other theist seek to inject subjects and meaning that evolution does not seek to address. One of which is your afore mentioned purpose to life akin to the one determined by theism.
QUOTE
I couldn't care less if evolution addresses 'purpose'. The point is that evolution leads people down a path that leads them to believe there is no purpose. The net effect is atheism, naturalism, and other 'isms.
Then why keep trying to make that exact claim? What you believe evolution does or does not do is also moot seeing as you keep misrepresenting what it seeks to begin with. As stated by myself and others, there are theist who also support evolution and some may even see a divine hand in it. Your claims are not supported by reality and go to address a point I made before about the fear of theists. Certain thoughts and theories are bad because they might lead to questioning the established word or a religion. When you must control thoughts to keep order, you can no longer claim to be working or operating with the interest of mankind in mind.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I couldn't care less if evolution addresses 'purpose'. The point is that evolution leads people down a path that leads them to believe there is no purpose. The net effect is atheism, naturalism, and other 'isms. |
Then why keep trying to make that exact claim? What you believe evolution does or does not do is also moot seeing as you keep misrepresenting what it seeks to begin with. As stated by myself and others, there are theist who also support evolution and some may even see a divine hand in it. Your claims are not supported by reality and go to address a point I made before about the fear of theists. Certain thoughts and theories are bad because they might lead to questioning the established word or a religion. When you must control thoughts to keep order, you can no longer claim to be working or operating with the interest of mankind in mind.
Self-gratification comes and goes, it is part of being human - but when deliberate thought precedes an action performed by a loving Christian - self is placed 2nd or 3rd - while others are placed first. This is not a martyr effect - this is love. When a Christian puts another person in first place - it's because they want them to receive the love of God - like they have received it.
No, this is also self-gratification and your example is not one of just the actions of a theist. Any parent or person with a significant other puts themselves last in many situations. As you say, this is an act of love and has nothing to do with theism. But, your earlier claim is still false. Self-gratification is a driving force in what theist do.
QUOTE
The only legitimate claim a 'good' evolutionist could make is the one that says they are equal with all creatures
No, you are confusing animal rights activists like P.E.T.A. with “evolutionists”.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The only legitimate claim a 'good' evolutionist could make is the one that says they are equal with all creatures |
No, you are confusing animal rights activists like P.E.T.A. with “evolutionists”.
Garbage!
Great counterpoint. Care to try again? Here is my comment again. Try to comment on the post this time with something of substance.
QUOTE
GS
And here is where your religion, limited views and assumption lead you astray in your attempt at rational thought. A lack of humility or compassion is no crime nor is conceit unless you consider the spirit crimes of the xian religion. A person can do everything by themselves and rely upon no one and whatever they accomplish is indeed their own. You make an assumption that the xian god is a given and even if you assume such, that the xian god is actively involved in everything man does.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
GS And here is where your religion, limited views and assumption lead you astray in your attempt at rational thought. A lack of humility or compassion is no crime nor is conceit unless you consider the spirit crimes of the xian religion. A person can do everything by themselves and rely upon no one and whatever they accomplish is indeed their own. You make an assumption that the xian god is a given and even if you assume such, that the xian god is actively involved in everything man does. |
Not self-righteous. Righteous. Big difference. The desire to introduce you to God is their only motive. We hope that you will consider a deeper search for the one true God. If we are mistaken about the actual final destiny of sinners, well, we're sorry. One might say eternal torture in burning hell, I might say eternal death and seperation from God. But either way, you don't want to go there.
No difference at all. Your god, contrary to what you keep claiming, is not a fact. Neither are all the other myriad of gods, goddesses, spirits, sprites, demons, pixies and dwellers of the ethereal realm(s). Therefore, your actions are that of a self-righteous individual in condemning others not of your faith. Again, you are free to believe what you will, but to force that onto others or to act from a false sense of superiority is the act of the self-righteous.
And again, stop also assuming and claiming that what you have to offer has not been thoroughly consider and rejected by some here. Accept the fact that there are those who find what you have to offer of no value.
QUOTE
Prayers were answered for both Olympians. Just maybe not the way you or they want. Maybe the non medal winner received mercy from the Lord, and the medal winnder received punishment.
And that is the answer of a self-righteous and arrogant religious zealot. Not only do you assume that you god is a given, but that he/she/it actively manipulates everyone’s life regardless of personal effort. Using this view, mankind is nothing more than a plaything to your deity. With that outlook in mind, perhaps now you will start to see why there are a growing number of people who question your superstition.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Prayers were answered for both Olympians. Just maybe not the way you or they want. Maybe the non medal winner received mercy from the Lord, and the medal winnder received punishment. |
And that is the answer of a self-righteous and arrogant religious zealot. Not only do you assume that you god is a given, but that he/she/it actively manipulates everyone’s life regardless of personal effort. Using this view, mankind is nothing more than a plaything to your deity. With that outlook in mind, perhaps now you will start to see why there are a growing number of people who question your superstition.
You are not wise enough to know how the Lord operates. No one is.
You are right. No one is capable of knowing just how such a fluid deity and a fluid faith and superstition can and will be applied.
QUOTE
You, an immature and unrepentant sinner, can say 'well, I don't want to know Him then - if He doesn't come to me on my terms - then the heck with Him!' That's your choice, one you made of your own free will. You have to live with it.
I love this. If you can’t beg them to follow the faith then insult them and mention again the damnation that awaits. Were we not just talking about the self-righteous theists an their condemnations? And one last point, the “free will” mention again. Yes you have free will, but choose wrong and you will burn for all eternity. Some free will and such love form this particular deity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You, an immature and unrepentant sinner, can say 'well, I don't want to know Him then - if He doesn't come to me on my terms - then the heck with Him!' That's your choice, one you made of your own free will. You have to live with it. |
I love this. If you can’t beg them to follow the faith then insult them and mention again the damnation that awaits. Were we not just talking about the self-righteous theists an their condemnations? And one last point, the “free will” mention again. Yes you have free will, but choose wrong and you will burn for all eternity. Some free will and such love form this particular deity.
You are here on this planet to show God your character, to come to know Him, to accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior - so that you may receive eternal life. A gift, one you accept of your own free will. Are you pro-choice in this area? Or are you going to abort this mission, and receive the wages of sin (death)?
Here’s another fact of your particular superstition Messenger. One that in exemplified by that last post of yours. Fear of the grave is why most people follow your superstition. It is also why so many people convert at the end of their life or on their “death beds”. Fear. It is that same fear that you and others are motivated by when you encounter people who question or simply reject what you have to offer.
Hope all had a good weekend.
QUOTE
But I am with the Muslims on being totally against disrespectful media, cartoons and other 'art forms' portraying religions in a negative way.
There is freedom of the press - with responsibility. Freedom of the press is supposed to give you the freedom to criticize your government, but it is not an avenue to ridicule and degrade people's religious beliefs.
Freedom of the press, and of speech, is just that. The true test of which is the protection and support of unpopular press and speech. Are there certain expected responsibilities? One could argue that, but not by using such a fluid measure as “offensive”, “ridicule” or “degrade” as a gauge. We would end up with speech codes that allow jail terms for saying or typint the wrong thing in public.
Come on now Genesplicer. lets be honest here. The only responsibility most news people consider is to showing the news that will get the most coverage. The only thing that the major news, and I have noticed, especially American news worries about is ratings. Thats why news casts are always full of violent tragedies! And if we are talking about responsibility, how come news is always skewed in the way that the west is always right. I am all for freedom of the press, and I don't want the right to publish anything to be taken away. But lets also not like idiots hide behind the viel of Freedom of the Press. The cartoonisnt, and danish newspaper made a huge mistake in publishing this cartoon. And one of the cartoons has a depiction a bunch of angry muslims taking arms (is what I was told, I never actually saw it) and Mohammad telling them to relax because it is just a cartoon. So I would find it hard to believe that they had not even the slightest idea of what might have happened. What the radicals are doing is completely wrong, stupid, etc....but it doesn't mean that the danish newspaper is not also wrong and stupid! Freedom of the Press does also mean your responsible for what you publish, and any public repercussions you will have to take. I am of the opinion that the violence incited is partially the fault of the danish newspaper. The term I think that best describes the most likely motives of the danish paper is "SH!T Disturber". There is nothing to be proud of there, and I think its ridiculous that other news outlets are publishing or showing the cartoons to "protect freedom of the press".
Come on now Genesplicer. lets be honest here. The only responsibility most news people consider is to showing the news that will get the most coverage. The only thing that the major news, and I have noticed, especially American news worries about is ratings. Thats why news casts are always full of violent tragedies! And if we are talking about responsibility, how come news is always skewed in the way that the west is always right. I am all for freedom of the press, and I don't want the right to publish anything to be taken away. But lets also not like idiots hide behind the viel of Freedom of the Press. The cartoonisnt, and danish newspaper made a huge mistake in publishing this cartoon. And one of the cartoons has a depiction a bunch of angry muslims taking arms (is what I was told, I never actually saw it) and Mohammad telling them to relax because it is just a cartoon. So I would find it hard to believe that they had not even the slightest idea of what might have happened. What the radicals are doing is completely wrong, stupid, etc....but it doesn't mean that the danish newspaper is not also wrong and stupid! Freedom of the Press does also mean your responsible for what you publish, and any public repercussions you will have to take. I am of the opinion that the violence incited is partially the fault of the danish newspaper. The term I think that best describes the most likely motives of the danish paper is "SH!T Disturber". There is nothing to be proud of there, and I think its ridiculous that other news outlets are publishing or showing the cartoons to "protect freedom of the press".
I don't know about anyone else but this quote is complete nonsense to me. When a religion is talking it's young men into becoming cheap smart bombs by promising 72 virgins in the next life, when that religion sends mobs into the street because someone dared to criticize such behavior, when a religion blows up Budda's statue, which is older than the religion lighting the fuse and a world treasure, when a religion flies airplanes into buildings in New York, when a religion has no respect for a women's rights, when a religion teaches it's children lies and hatred and is bringing the world to the brink of conflagration it is very much the job of the press to cover that story, point out that evil and alert the world to that problem using any means necessary to do so including ridicule and sarcasm.
Come on Grumpy, the idiotic mobs of violent muslims is not the majority of muslims. The radical population of Islam is pretty small, just like the fundamentalist, right wing evangellical population of christians is the minority, just by far the loudest group! We don't paint all christians with the fundy evangellical brush, so we should not paint all of islam with the brush of terror. Thats exactly what that cartoon was doing. By the book Islam is a very peaceful religion, and supposed to be actually pretty good for women's rights. Just like societies have twisted christianity, so have arabic societies twisted the teachings of islam. If it is the job of the press to cover the STORY then maybe there would be some coverage of the history of the conflict and of american retaliation, not the selective coverage that there is now. The press is after ratings, and will report only the things that will get them the most ratings (I am sure there are some press outlets that feel differently, but the major news groups want ratings). Money is the responsibility they care about, and they use freedom of the press when they are in a lot of trouble. Also, Messenger did make a good point before (Did I really say that?) that historically Freedom of the Press is to criticize your own government so they can not dominate ad oppress the population, not to criticize and ridicule other cultures that we don't even fully understand. So, I understand what freedom of the press means, but we should also take in mind what the intention of originally giving freedom of the press was.
Yeah, evolution is free thinking. I learned of the concept, I thought it over, and it made sense. A lot more sense to me than any religious beliefs. Sorry if you feel differently, but why is my deciding what I think makes sense so terrible to you? Does me 'believing' in evolution do anything to your life? I don't go around telling people that if you believe in god your an idiot. And I can also see the consequences of my choices clearly. Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean I can not think. And are you sure your free to choose how you live your life? I think you already made your choice, and now your stuck in a much more narrow path now. I think your choices are more limited now. You may be happy, which is great, but don't confuse happiness with choices. Very different.
I never said physics is my purpose, however it is one of my passions. I don't believe in these predetermined things, so you might think purpose, but I think passion and choice (and a bit of luck) have combined for what I am doing now. And about premaritial sex, who the hell are you to make accusations about me that I am sure you have no clue about. I do have premaritial sex with my girlfriend. And we do plan on getting married. I am faithful, and loving. So don't preach to me about anything else. You talk so much about love. I think love is more important than some title of marriage. Love is a feeling, and it makes you change inside, and marriage is a title, and a public acknowledgement of love. You shouldn't get married without love, and your god, if he exists, would frown upon a marriage with no love. You are trying to make a choice in my life such a big deal, and its retarded. There are much more important things in the world then a couple that loves eachother having premarital sex. Maybe you should get your priorities straight.
Also, I remember seeing a show about a town in Texas. It was made by a highschool student during the course of her 4 years of highschool. This town was a Christian town that stuck to all of those beliefs you are preaching. In the school system the only kind of sex ed they taught was "abstanence until marriage". They did not teach about condoms, or birth control, or anything. Wanna know something funny? (not really, its a shame) This town had the highest rate of teen pregnancy in America. You would think that possibly they would try a little bit of education? Nope, because teaching about condoms would just incourage kids to have sex....not that being the teen pregnancy leader in America would tell them the kids were already having sex. Wanting to wait until marriage is fine. If thats your personal choice I respect that. I have friends who have made that choice. And I respect them a lot for making it. However that choice was not right for me. I feel that sex is an expression of love, so when I am in love I want to show my love. So I do. Thats how simple it is, so quit with the god damn preaching already.
The consequence to my conclusion is peace of mind. What I got when I concluded that Christianity was not right for me was a feeling of things getting better. I discovered who I was, and who I was not. Who I am is clearly not the same as who you are. You need to learn to respect the differences. Not respecting the differences it what leads to hate and intolerance. And if anything can be taken from the problems with the radical muslims is that hate and intolerance is not a good thing. You don't respect my beliefs....it could easily lead to you thinking I am an inferior person (maybe it already has) which could easily lead to you feeling justified in treating me, or others with my similar ideas badly (by your actions in here, you have already reached this stage) and that is not something that is good in any religion.
Come on Grumpy, the idiotic mobs of violent muslims is not the majority of muslims. The radical population of Islam is pretty small, just like the fundamentalist, right wing evangellical population of christians is the minority, just by far the loudest group! We don't paint all christians with the fundy evangellical brush, so we should not paint all of islam with the brush of terror.
It doesn't matter what the particular group is, it is the fundamentalists of the group that one should worry about. It could be Muslims, Christians, Secularists, or atheists. The fundamentalists of any of these groups reduce the world to a black & white, us vs. them intolerant perspective. If you look, you can find fundamentalists in just about any philosophical corner, but their existence should not be a condemnation for a larger group of people. To do so would be to act like, well, a fundamentalist.
I heard a piece on the BBC (bbcworldservice.com) that additional cartoons, drawn by Muslim extremists and depicting Allah as a pediphile, etc. were also being shown around in Muslim countries to stoke up the crowds. This situation is a bit more complicated than a simple action / reaction sequence. Fear is a great fuel for intolerance.
I agree entirely! And it is pretty sad that even more anger is being incited. I heard it was from the governments where these crowds assembled. And don't get me wrong, I find pretty much every aspect of this pretty sickening. I am just so sick of people shifting some of the blame off of the press because of the irrational actions of these fundamentalists. There have been a lot of wrongs here, from everywhere.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...real060213.html
Its interesting that in Montreal where there were some peaceful protests that mosques were vandalized, and a muslim cleric was attacked and stabbed, but still all of the blame is on the islamic community, and not on anyone else. Anyone else who has a problem with that? I mean a few idiots vandalize a mosque and people get it right. The actions of a few idiots. But when a few idiots who happen to be islamic do some stupid everyone gets painted by the same brush. All I want is condemnation for the idiots, and the people who are not idiots to stop getting lumped in with it. Thats all I am asking for!
Yes, but it's an excellent starting place. Wiki has been an excellent tool for helping me understand the origins of Christianity and Judaism. The amount of research needed to question such long standing assumptions requires more time than I have. By using Wiki I can develop basic ideas, a basic structure for a final theory. Then I can use “real” references to verify and alter that theory. I also like to use forums such as this to get a reaction, to see if anything is too obviously flawed. Granted a religious based forum would more appropriate, but I have already been ran out of a few, and they are hardly lend themselves to the free exchange of ideas.
Yes, but it's an excellent starting place. Wiki has been an excellent tool for helping me understand the origins of Christianity and Judaism. The amount of research needed to question such long standing assumptions requires more time than I have. By using Wiki I can develop basic ideas, a basic structure for a final theory. Then I can use “real” references to verify and alter that theory. I also like to use forums such as this to get a reaction, to see if anything is too obviously flawed. Granted a religious based forum would more appropriate, but I have already been ran out of a few, and they are hardly lend themselves to the free exchange of ideas.
especially American news worries about is ratings.
By law a corporation’s obligation is too make money for it's stock holders, to do that ratings must be as high as possible. The fault lies not in the media but in either the laws or the public. Would you rather have laws that dictate what is and isn't good media, or to allow the public to choose in the form of ratings?
Who is the consumer? The west. Do you think people would want to watch news that says "shame on you"? The world has yet to come up with an effective formula for the media. If it is capitalistic, then is sensationalized, tabloid, infotainment. If it is socialistic then it becomes a pawn of the government. I don't know if there is a correct answer, but for starters I would like to see at least a law requiring that all media outlets become not-for-profits.
I support anyone's right to print or say anything. As a world we are too uptight and easily offended, the Muslim world is just more so. In the US there is plenty that is illegal to publish. Some 4 letter combinations for example, why? Simple words considered too offensive. That is hypocrisy.
Who is the consumer? The west. Do you think people would want to watch news that says "shame on you"? The world has yet to come up with an effective formula for the media. If it is capitalistic, then is sensationalized, tabloid, infotainment. If it is socialistic then it becomes a pawn of the government. I don't know if there is a correct answer, but for starters I would like to see at least a law requiring that all media outlets become not-for-profits.
I support anyone's right to print or say anything. As a world we are too uptight and easily offended, the Muslim world is just more so. In the US there is plenty that is illegal to publish. Some 4 letter combinations for example, why? Simple words considered too offensive. That is hypocrisy.
If it is the job of the press to cover the STORY then maybe there would be some coverage of the history of the conflict and of American retaliation, not the selective coverage that there is now.
Unfortunately even on our 24 hour news networks, time is too expensive to waste it covering historical perspectives. Generally people don't want a history lesson when they watch the news. This is a major flaw with not only capitalistic media, but democracy in general. The public is always too ill informed to make wise decisions.
“Always” skewed? And what exactly are you viewing/reading? Such a blanket statement that does not reflect the majority of news casts regarding the current administration in the leaste I would dare to say.
I never commented on ratings or a commercial press, but the call for such a fluid gage or measure that Messenger and similar mentalities would like to see. Tabloid press, such as it is, will always have its followers. But there are also more thought provoking articles and writers that are not pursuing just the monetary reward.
“Always” skewed? And what exactly are you viewing/reading? Such a blanket statement that does not reflect the majority of news casts regarding the current administration in the leaste I would dare to say.
I never commented on ratings or a commercial press, but the call for such a fluid gage or measure that Messenger and similar mentalities would like to see. Tabloid press, such as it is, will always have its followers. But there are also more thought provoking articles and writers that are not pursuing just the monetary reward.
I am all for freedom of the press, and I don't want the right to publish anything to be taken away. But lets also not like idiots hide behind the viel of Freedom of the Press.
I’m not “hiding” behind freedom of the press. The point of defending freedom(s) is when you must defend such an exercise of a freedom deemed as unpopular by some.
Why? Because it upset people following a highly controlling religion? So I guess we must also not publish any image deemed upsetting to xians as well? How about other groups that may be “offended”?
Why? Because it upset people following a highly controlling religion? So I guess we must also not publish any image deemed upsetting to xians as well? How about other groups that may be “offended”?
And one of the cartoons has a depiction a bunch of angry muslims taking arms (is what I was told, I never actually saw it) and Mohammad telling them to relax because it is just a cartoon. So I would find it hard to believe that they had not even the slightest idea of what might have happened. What the radicals are doing is completely wrong, stupid, etc....but it doesn't mean that the danish newspaper is not also wrong and stupid!
Again, why? Why should anyone fear not speaking his or her mind due to the limitations of another? So you would advocate that everyone must censor themselves or be censored in order to appease the sensitivities of an extreme few? How is this any different than the actions of the past when another religion censored society?
Okay, so if someone make a statement that is factually correct but “offends” one of these superstitious fools and is attacked or harmed, the person making the factual statement is at fault? So again, using your logic, we must pander to the extremist and be censored by their sensitivities?
Where does it stop? First we cannot say certain thing due to “offences” and your support of justified retaliation. What is next? We must stop certain research due to some superstition’s taboo? How about we alter our society as to not evoke the justified retaliations?
You do not give into or support such lunacy. You stand up to it and put these reactionary superstitious barbarians in their place. The world is not going to give up freedoms to avoid the hostile reaction of religious zealots nor should it. Capitulation to such demand will hamper the freedoms of everyone.
People have already given into such lunacy like removing statues of Piglet and “piggy” banks as to not offend Muslims or even shutting down a ice cream machine because the swirl “offended” a Muslim. Just how far to bend over for this idiocy?
QUOTE
QUOTE
But I am with the Muslims on being totally against disrespectful media, cartoons and other 'art forms' portraying religions in a negative way.
There is freedom of the press - with responsibility. Freedom of the press is supposed to give you the freedom to criticize your government, but it is not an avenue to ridicule and degrade people's religious beliefs.
Freedom of the press, and of speech, is just that. The true test of which is the protection and support of unpopular press and speech. Are there certain expected responsibilities? One could argue that, but not by using such a fluid measure as “offensive”, “ridicule” or “degrade” as a gauge. We would end up with speech codes that allow jail terms for saying or typint the wrong thing in public.
Come on now Genesplicer. lets be honest here. The only responsibility most news people consider is to showing the news that will get the most coverage. The only thing that the major news, and I have noticed, especially American news worries about is ratings. Thats why news casts are always full of violent tragedies! And if we are talking about responsibility, how come news is always skewed in the way that the west is always right. I am all for freedom of the press, and I don't want the right to publish anything to be taken away. But lets also not like idiots hide behind the viel of Freedom of the Press. The cartoonisnt, and danish newspaper made a huge mistake in publishing this cartoon. And one of the cartoons has a depiction a bunch of angry muslims taking arms (is what I was told, I never actually saw it) and Mohammad telling them to relax because it is just a cartoon. So I would find it hard to believe that they had not even the slightest idea of what might have happened. What the radicals are doing is completely wrong, stupid, etc....but it doesn't mean that the danish newspaper is not also wrong and stupid! Freedom of the Press does also mean your responsible for what you publish, and any public repercussions you will have to take. I am of the opinion that the violence incited is partially the fault of the danish newspaper. The term I think that best describes the most likely motives of the danish paper is "SH!T Disturber". There is nothing to be proud of there, and I think its ridiculous that other news outlets are publishing or showing the cartoons to "protect freedom of the press".
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE But I am with the Muslims on being totally against disrespectful media, cartoons and other 'art forms' portraying religions in a negative way. There is freedom of the press - with responsibility. Freedom of the press is supposed to give you the freedom to criticize your government, but it is not an avenue to ridicule and degrade people's religious beliefs. Freedom of the press, and of speech, is just that. The true test of which is the protection and support of unpopular press and speech. Are there certain expected responsibilities? One could argue that, but not by using such a fluid measure as “offensive”, “ridicule” or “degrade” as a gauge. We would end up with speech codes that allow jail terms for saying or typint the wrong thing in public. |
Come on now Genesplicer. lets be honest here. The only responsibility most news people consider is to showing the news that will get the most coverage. The only thing that the major news, and I have noticed, especially American news worries about is ratings. Thats why news casts are always full of violent tragedies! And if we are talking about responsibility, how come news is always skewed in the way that the west is always right. I am all for freedom of the press, and I don't want the right to publish anything to be taken away. But lets also not like idiots hide behind the viel of Freedom of the Press. The cartoonisnt, and danish newspaper made a huge mistake in publishing this cartoon. And one of the cartoons has a depiction a bunch of angry muslims taking arms (is what I was told, I never actually saw it) and Mohammad telling them to relax because it is just a cartoon. So I would find it hard to believe that they had not even the slightest idea of what might have happened. What the radicals are doing is completely wrong, stupid, etc....but it doesn't mean that the danish newspaper is not also wrong and stupid! Freedom of the Press does also mean your responsible for what you publish, and any public repercussions you will have to take. I am of the opinion that the violence incited is partially the fault of the danish newspaper. The term I think that best describes the most likely motives of the danish paper is "SH!T Disturber". There is nothing to be proud of there, and I think its ridiculous that other news outlets are publishing or showing the cartoons to "protect freedom of the press".
I don't know about anyone else but this quote is complete nonsense to me. When a religion is talking it's young men into becoming cheap smart bombs by promising 72 virgins in the next life, when that religion sends mobs into the street because someone dared to criticize such behavior, when a religion blows up Budda's statue, which is older than the religion lighting the fuse and a world treasure, when a religion flies airplanes into buildings in New York, when a religion has no respect for a women's rights, when a religion teaches it's children lies and hatred and is bringing the world to the brink of conflagration it is very much the job of the press to cover that story, point out that evil and alert the world to that problem using any means necessary to do so including ridicule and sarcasm.
Come on Grumpy, the idiotic mobs of violent muslims is not the majority of muslims. The radical population of Islam is pretty small, just like the fundamentalist, right wing evangellical population of christians is the minority, just by far the loudest group! We don't paint all christians with the fundy evangellical brush, so we should not paint all of islam with the brush of terror. Thats exactly what that cartoon was doing. By the book Islam is a very peaceful religion, and supposed to be actually pretty good for women's rights. Just like societies have twisted christianity, so have arabic societies twisted the teachings of islam. If it is the job of the press to cover the STORY then maybe there would be some coverage of the history of the conflict and of american retaliation, not the selective coverage that there is now. The press is after ratings, and will report only the things that will get them the most ratings (I am sure there are some press outlets that feel differently, but the major news groups want ratings). Money is the responsibility they care about, and they use freedom of the press when they are in a lot of trouble. Also, Messenger did make a good point before (Did I really say that?) that historically Freedom of the Press is to criticize your own government so they can not dominate ad oppress the population, not to criticize and ridicule other cultures that we don't even fully understand. So, I understand what freedom of the press means, but we should also take in mind what the intention of originally giving freedom of the press was.
QUOTE
Steveo,
Evolution allows free thinking? Try to tell them that you think people were evolved from an entirely different origin - and see how free thinking 'they' are!
My religion, my God, sets me free! I am no longer a slave to sin. I am free to choose how I will live my life, I can see clearly what the consequences are to my choices. You have no such freedom.
You may think that learning/doing/teaching physics is your purpose, or that having premarital sex is your right and purpose. But do you know what the consequences are?
If you were a Christian - you would know that premarital sex leads only to romantic love, and not to oneness. If you were Christian and you were married first, before having sex, you would know that there is no better or more fulfilling sex to be experienced. There is great freedom and pleasure in knowing that what you are doing is pleasing in God's sight. It's not like He doesn't know what you're doing, ya know. Oh, and He did invent sex by the way.
My advice to you would be to study Christianity so thoroughly, and so completely, that there is no doubt in your mind that it is either true or not true. After all, there are great consequences to your conclusions.
Evolution allows free thinking? Try to tell them that you think people were evolved from an entirely different origin - and see how free thinking 'they' are!
My religion, my God, sets me free! I am no longer a slave to sin. I am free to choose how I will live my life, I can see clearly what the consequences are to my choices. You have no such freedom.
You may think that learning/doing/teaching physics is your purpose, or that having premarital sex is your right and purpose. But do you know what the consequences are?
If you were a Christian - you would know that premarital sex leads only to romantic love, and not to oneness. If you were Christian and you were married first, before having sex, you would know that there is no better or more fulfilling sex to be experienced. There is great freedom and pleasure in knowing that what you are doing is pleasing in God's sight. It's not like He doesn't know what you're doing, ya know. Oh, and He did invent sex by the way.
My advice to you would be to study Christianity so thoroughly, and so completely, that there is no doubt in your mind that it is either true or not true. After all, there are great consequences to your conclusions.
Yeah, evolution is free thinking. I learned of the concept, I thought it over, and it made sense. A lot more sense to me than any religious beliefs. Sorry if you feel differently, but why is my deciding what I think makes sense so terrible to you? Does me 'believing' in evolution do anything to your life? I don't go around telling people that if you believe in god your an idiot. And I can also see the consequences of my choices clearly. Just because I don't believe in god doesn't mean I can not think. And are you sure your free to choose how you live your life? I think you already made your choice, and now your stuck in a much more narrow path now. I think your choices are more limited now. You may be happy, which is great, but don't confuse happiness with choices. Very different.
I never said physics is my purpose, however it is one of my passions. I don't believe in these predetermined things, so you might think purpose, but I think passion and choice (and a bit of luck) have combined for what I am doing now. And about premaritial sex, who the hell are you to make accusations about me that I am sure you have no clue about. I do have premaritial sex with my girlfriend. And we do plan on getting married. I am faithful, and loving. So don't preach to me about anything else. You talk so much about love. I think love is more important than some title of marriage. Love is a feeling, and it makes you change inside, and marriage is a title, and a public acknowledgement of love. You shouldn't get married without love, and your god, if he exists, would frown upon a marriage with no love. You are trying to make a choice in my life such a big deal, and its retarded. There are much more important things in the world then a couple that loves eachother having premarital sex. Maybe you should get your priorities straight.
Also, I remember seeing a show about a town in Texas. It was made by a highschool student during the course of her 4 years of highschool. This town was a Christian town that stuck to all of those beliefs you are preaching. In the school system the only kind of sex ed they taught was "abstanence until marriage". They did not teach about condoms, or birth control, or anything. Wanna know something funny? (not really, its a shame) This town had the highest rate of teen pregnancy in America. You would think that possibly they would try a little bit of education? Nope, because teaching about condoms would just incourage kids to have sex....not that being the teen pregnancy leader in America would tell them the kids were already having sex. Wanting to wait until marriage is fine. If thats your personal choice I respect that. I have friends who have made that choice. And I respect them a lot for making it. However that choice was not right for me. I feel that sex is an expression of love, so when I am in love I want to show my love. So I do. Thats how simple it is, so quit with the god damn preaching already.
The consequence to my conclusion is peace of mind. What I got when I concluded that Christianity was not right for me was a feeling of things getting better. I discovered who I was, and who I was not. Who I am is clearly not the same as who you are. You need to learn to respect the differences. Not respecting the differences it what leads to hate and intolerance. And if anything can be taken from the problems with the radical muslims is that hate and intolerance is not a good thing. You don't respect my beliefs....it could easily lead to you thinking I am an inferior person (maybe it already has) which could easily lead to you feeling justified in treating me, or others with my similar ideas badly (by your actions in here, you have already reached this stage) and that is not something that is good in any religion.
QUOTE (Steveo+Feb 13 2006, 04:27 PM)
Come on Grumpy, the idiotic mobs of violent muslims is not the majority of muslims. The radical population of Islam is pretty small, just like the fundamentalist, right wing evangellical population of christians is the minority, just by far the loudest group! We don't paint all christians with the fundy evangellical brush, so we should not paint all of islam with the brush of terror.
It doesn't matter what the particular group is, it is the fundamentalists of the group that one should worry about. It could be Muslims, Christians, Secularists, or atheists. The fundamentalists of any of these groups reduce the world to a black & white, us vs. them intolerant perspective. If you look, you can find fundamentalists in just about any philosophical corner, but their existence should not be a condemnation for a larger group of people. To do so would be to act like, well, a fundamentalist.
I heard a piece on the BBC (bbcworldservice.com) that additional cartoons, drawn by Muslim extremists and depicting Allah as a pediphile, etc. were also being shown around in Muslim countries to stoke up the crowds. This situation is a bit more complicated than a simple action / reaction sequence. Fear is a great fuel for intolerance.
QUOTE
It doesn't matter what the particular group is, it is the fundamentalists of the group that one should worry about. It could be Muslims, Christians, Secularists, or atheists. The fundamentalists of any of these groups reduce the world to a black & white, us vs. them intolerant perspective. If you look, you can find fundamentalists in just about any philosophical corner, but their existence should not be a condemnation for a larger group of people. To do so would be to act like, well, a fundamentalist.
I heard a piece on the BBC (bbcworldservice.com) that additional cartoons, drawn by Muslim extremists and depicting Allah as a pediphile, etc. were also being shown around in Muslim countries to stoke up the crowds. This situation is a bit more complicated than a simple action / reaction sequence. Fear is a great fuel for intolerance.
I heard a piece on the BBC (bbcworldservice.com) that additional cartoons, drawn by Muslim extremists and depicting Allah as a pediphile, etc. were also being shown around in Muslim countries to stoke up the crowds. This situation is a bit more complicated than a simple action / reaction sequence. Fear is a great fuel for intolerance.
I agree entirely! And it is pretty sad that even more anger is being incited. I heard it was from the governments where these crowds assembled. And don't get me wrong, I find pretty much every aspect of this pretty sickening. I am just so sick of people shifting some of the blame off of the press because of the irrational actions of these fundamentalists. There have been a lot of wrongs here, from everywhere.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/20...real060213.html
Its interesting that in Montreal where there were some peaceful protests that mosques were vandalized, and a muslim cleric was attacked and stabbed, but still all of the blame is on the islamic community, and not on anyone else. Anyone else who has a problem with that? I mean a few idiots vandalize a mosque and people get it right. The actions of a few idiots. But when a few idiots who happen to be islamic do some stupid everyone gets painted by the same brush. All I want is condemnation for the idiots, and the people who are not idiots to stop getting lumped in with it. Thats all I am asking for!
QUOTE
Maybe you have something there - but Wikipedia is the last place I'd go for religious information - it's biased against religion.
Yes, but it's an excellent starting place. Wiki has been an excellent tool for helping me understand the origins of Christianity and Judaism. The amount of research needed to question such long standing assumptions requires more time than I have. By using Wiki I can develop basic ideas, a basic structure for a final theory. Then I can use “real” references to verify and alter that theory. I also like to use forums such as this to get a reaction, to see if anything is too obviously flawed. Granted a religious based forum would more appropriate, but I have already been ran out of a few, and they are hardly lend themselves to the free exchange of ideas.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Maybe you have something there - but Wikipedia is the last place I'd go for religious information - it's biased against religion. |
Yes, but it's an excellent starting place. Wiki has been an excellent tool for helping me understand the origins of Christianity and Judaism. The amount of research needed to question such long standing assumptions requires more time than I have. By using Wiki I can develop basic ideas, a basic structure for a final theory. Then I can use “real” references to verify and alter that theory. I also like to use forums such as this to get a reaction, to see if anything is too obviously flawed. Granted a religious based forum would more appropriate, but I have already been ran out of a few, and they are hardly lend themselves to the free exchange of ideas.
especially American news worries about is ratings.
By law a corporation’s obligation is too make money for it's stock holders, to do that ratings must be as high as possible. The fault lies not in the media but in either the laws or the public. Would you rather have laws that dictate what is and isn't good media, or to allow the public to choose in the form of ratings?
QUOTE
how come news is always skewed in the way that the west is always right.
Who is the consumer? The west. Do you think people would want to watch news that says "shame on you"? The world has yet to come up with an effective formula for the media. If it is capitalistic, then is sensationalized, tabloid, infotainment. If it is socialistic then it becomes a pawn of the government. I don't know if there is a correct answer, but for starters I would like to see at least a law requiring that all media outlets become not-for-profits.
I support anyone's right to print or say anything. As a world we are too uptight and easily offended, the Muslim world is just more so. In the US there is plenty that is illegal to publish. Some 4 letter combinations for example, why? Simple words considered too offensive. That is hypocrisy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| how come news is always skewed in the way that the west is always right. |
Who is the consumer? The west. Do you think people would want to watch news that says "shame on you"? The world has yet to come up with an effective formula for the media. If it is capitalistic, then is sensationalized, tabloid, infotainment. If it is socialistic then it becomes a pawn of the government. I don't know if there is a correct answer, but for starters I would like to see at least a law requiring that all media outlets become not-for-profits.
I support anyone's right to print or say anything. As a world we are too uptight and easily offended, the Muslim world is just more so. In the US there is plenty that is illegal to publish. Some 4 letter combinations for example, why? Simple words considered too offensive. That is hypocrisy.
If it is the job of the press to cover the STORY then maybe there would be some coverage of the history of the conflict and of American retaliation, not the selective coverage that there is now.
Unfortunately even on our 24 hour news networks, time is too expensive to waste it covering historical perspectives. Generally people don't want a history lesson when they watch the news. This is a major flaw with not only capitalistic media, but democracy in general. The public is always too ill informed to make wise decisions.
QUOTE
Come on now Genesplicer. lets be honest here. The only responsibility most news people consider is to showing the news that will get the most coverage. The only thing that the major news, and I have noticed, especially American news worries about is ratings. Thats why news casts are always full of violent tragedies! And if we are talking about responsibility, how come news is always skewed in the way that the west is always right.
“Always” skewed? And what exactly are you viewing/reading? Such a blanket statement that does not reflect the majority of news casts regarding the current administration in the leaste I would dare to say.
I never commented on ratings or a commercial press, but the call for such a fluid gage or measure that Messenger and similar mentalities would like to see. Tabloid press, such as it is, will always have its followers. But there are also more thought provoking articles and writers that are not pursuing just the monetary reward.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Come on now Genesplicer. lets be honest here. The only responsibility most news people consider is to showing the news that will get the most coverage. The only thing that the major news, and I have noticed, especially American news worries about is ratings. Thats why news casts are always full of violent tragedies! And if we are talking about responsibility, how come news is always skewed in the way that the west is always right. |
“Always” skewed? And what exactly are you viewing/reading? Such a blanket statement that does not reflect the majority of news casts regarding the current administration in the leaste I would dare to say.
I never commented on ratings or a commercial press, but the call for such a fluid gage or measure that Messenger and similar mentalities would like to see. Tabloid press, such as it is, will always have its followers. But there are also more thought provoking articles and writers that are not pursuing just the monetary reward.
I am all for freedom of the press, and I don't want the right to publish anything to be taken away. But lets also not like idiots hide behind the viel of Freedom of the Press.
I’m not “hiding” behind freedom of the press. The point of defending freedom(s) is when you must defend such an exercise of a freedom deemed as unpopular by some.
QUOTE
The cartoonisnt, and danish newspaper made a huge mistake in publishing this cartoon.
Why? Because it upset people following a highly controlling religion? So I guess we must also not publish any image deemed upsetting to xians as well? How about other groups that may be “offended”?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The cartoonisnt, and danish newspaper made a huge mistake in publishing this cartoon. |
Why? Because it upset people following a highly controlling religion? So I guess we must also not publish any image deemed upsetting to xians as well? How about other groups that may be “offended”?
And one of the cartoons has a depiction a bunch of angry muslims taking arms (is what I was told, I never actually saw it) and Mohammad telling them to relax because it is just a cartoon. So I would find it hard to believe that they had not even the slightest idea of what might have happened. What the radicals are doing is completely wrong, stupid, etc....but it doesn't mean that the danish newspaper is not also wrong and stupid!
Again, why? Why should anyone fear not speaking his or her mind due to the limitations of another? So you would advocate that everyone must censor themselves or be censored in order to appease the sensitivities of an extreme few? How is this any different than the actions of the past when another religion censored society?
QUOTE
Freedom of the Press does also mean your responsible for what you publish, and any public repercussions you will have to take. I am of the opinion that the violence incited is partially the fault of the danish newspaper. The term I think that best describes the most likely motives of the danish paper is "SH!T Disturber". There is nothing to be proud of there, and I think its ridiculous that other news outlets are publishing or showing the cartoons to "protect freedom of the press".
Okay, so if someone make a statement that is factually correct but “offends” one of these superstitious fools and is attacked or harmed, the person making the factual statement is at fault? So again, using your logic, we must pander to the extremist and be censored by their sensitivities?
Where does it stop? First we cannot say certain thing due to “offences” and your support of justified retaliation. What is next? We must stop certain research due to some superstition’s taboo? How about we alter our society as to not evoke the justified retaliations?
You do not give into or support such lunacy. You stand up to it and put these reactionary superstitious barbarians in their place. The world is not going to give up freedoms to avoid the hostile reaction of religious zealots nor should it. Capitulation to such demand will hamper the freedoms of everyone.
People have already given into such lunacy like removing statues of Piglet and “piggy” banks as to not offend Muslims or even shutting down a ice cream machine because the swirl “offended” a Muslim. Just how far to bend over for this idiocy?
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
Just how far to bend over for this idiocy?
GeneSplicer: Well, that depends. If you're an "altar boy"... Sorry, couldn't resist. Alright, I could have.
GeneSplicer: Well, that depends. If you're an "altar boy"... Sorry, couldn't resist. Alright, I could have.
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 13 2006, 01:43 PM)
QUOTE (GeneSplicer+)
Just how far to bend over for this idiocy?
GeneSplicer: Well, that depends. If you're an "altar boy"... Sorry, couldn't resist. Alright, I could have.
Newguy! I’m shocked. Amused, but shocked nonetheless. I half-expected such a response, but from you?!
Good one though…
All I want is people to stop saying they are standing up for freedom of the press, when infact they are trying to get a piece of controversy to get ratings. It seems to me that intentions are being covered by the defense of freedom of the press.
All I want is people to stop saying they are standing up for freedom of the press, when infact they are trying to get a piece of controversy to get ratings. It seems to me that intentions are being covered by the defense of freedom of the press.
“Always” skewed? And what exactly are you viewing/reading? Such a blanket statement that does not reflect the majority of news casts regarding the current administration in the leaste I would dare to say.
Fair enough, maybe such a blanket statement is not warranted. However it has been my experience that News, both Canadian and American about the middle east has been skewed a fair amount. I mean, you can just look at the perception that seems to be propogated by the media (maybe its just the government?) That terrorism is because the Middle East doesn't like our freedoms.
I am not talking about the individual authors, but each media outlet as a company. The companies want to make money. They have a corporate responsibility to make money. Lets not forget about that.
I am not talking about the individual authors, but each media outlet as a company. The companies want to make money. They have a corporate responsibility to make money. Lets not forget about that.
Why? Because it upset people following a highly controlling religion? So I guess we must also not publish any image deemed upsetting to xians as well? How about other groups that may be “offended”?
When it is known it will offend before hand, and when one could anticipate that it would lead to violence. I don't care that its because of religion or whatever. If there is a large crowd, and someone, or a group of people are known to incite a riot is there not some sort of criminal offense there? (I truthfully don't know, but I suspect a charge of disturbing the peace, or mischief could and would be laid in such a case?). How exactly would this be considered all that different, especially when the evidence points to the fact that the cartoonist knew that such violence might be possible. Remember, we are also not talking about people just being pissed off here. Many people have already died because of this. Over a cartoon? Its completely retarded from every level. But in hindsight, do you think its smart to publish a cartoon when people can die because of it? And don't say "we can't control the reactions of others" because I know that, and am not trying to defend those actions. But knowing and predicting such a horrible outcome....would you still publish those cartoons? They are not news, and not reporting on anything.
Its very different. I am not asking for the media to be censored, but I think it isn't to much to expect that the media have some common sense. I dunno....I guess freedom of the press allows people to stop exercising common sense.
Its very different. I am not asking for the media to be censored, but I think it isn't to much to expect that the media have some common sense. I dunno....I guess freedom of the press allows people to stop exercising common sense.
Okay, so if someone make a statement that is factually correct but “offends” one of these superstitious fools and is attacked or harmed, the person making the factual statement is at fault? So again, using your logic, we must pander to the extremist and be censored by their sensitivities?
Ok, and if something is factual, and offends, thats fine. But please enlighten me about what was factual about these cartoons? Is depiciting Mohammad as a terrorist factual? Is it factual to imply that Islam as a religion is terrorist, and is it factual to say the founder of the religion was a terrorist? If it is factual please provide me with the references that will illustrate this to me. Most people don't have a problem when the facts are reported about a terrorist attack when the religion is pointed out of the terrorist. But then when you turn that around and imply that all members of that religion are terrorists, it is no longer fact.
I would not call these cartoons standing up to lunacy. I would call it mockery. I also never said to give up freedoms. It may seem to you that I am trying to justify the reactions, however if you read any or all of my posts on this subject I have been clear that the actions by the extremists is wrong and idiotic. However rather than pushing the blame on one party I feel it should be blanketed over all parties that have some responsibility. Think of it this way. If you know someone who is gay, and knows that calling them a fag makes them pissed off and violent and you go and call them a fag who's fault is it? Yours, his, or both? If you know the consequences of your action, and if you don't like the consequences wouldn't it be partly your fault from the outcome? Of course, your FREE to say whatever you want because we have freedom of speech, but does that, and should that protect you from consequences of your actions?
I would not call these cartoons standing up to lunacy. I would call it mockery. I also never said to give up freedoms. It may seem to you that I am trying to justify the reactions, however if you read any or all of my posts on this subject I have been clear that the actions by the extremists is wrong and idiotic. However rather than pushing the blame on one party I feel it should be blanketed over all parties that have some responsibility. Think of it this way. If you know someone who is gay, and knows that calling them a fag makes them pissed off and violent and you go and call them a fag who's fault is it? Yours, his, or both? If you know the consequences of your action, and if you don't like the consequences wouldn't it be partly your fault from the outcome? Of course, your FREE to say whatever you want because we have freedom of speech, but does that, and should that protect you from consequences of your actions?
People have already given into such lunacy like removing statues of Piglet and “piggy” banks as to not offend Muslims or even shutting down a ice cream machine because the swirl “offended” a Muslim. Just how far to bend over for this idiocy?
I have never heard of these things, and your right, that is idiocy to remove those things. However using common sense is a little bit different than those examples.
Thanks newguy, I needed that laugh. I feel kind of bad for laughing at that...but the quotes that surround 'alter boy' make it ok right? haha
Bias is only "bias" when it isn't YOUR bias. A secular view of religion is the best way to look at religion, otherwise you only hear about the wonderful and honorable parts that make up a religion. Look at Scientology: it's an incredible, life-affirming and empowering religion if you listen to it's adherents. But take a deep look into it and what those who have come out of it have to say, and it becomes a little darker and more sinister. The lesson? Skepticism is the best policy, and remember you have to take all sides' views with (at least) a grain of salt.
Newsie:
Glad to see you back and fighting the Good Fight. I can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's good to see a theist with some consistency back around here. I notice you got quite the three-way battle going on with the Messy One and Numbered Steve.
Well, it should be remembered that the majority of catholic priests are not child molesters. And I guess people have the mentallity of "that could never happen to me" or "that could never happen at our church". But I agree that it doesn't make much sense for parents to be doing this.
GeneSplicer: Well, that depends. If you're an "altar boy"... Sorry, couldn't resist. Alright, I could have.
Newguy! I’m shocked. Amused, but shocked nonetheless. I half-expected such a response, but from you?!
Good one though…
QUOTE
QUOTE
especially American news worries about is ratings.
By law a corporation’s obligation is too make money for it's stock holders, to do that ratings must be as high as possible. The fault lies not in the media but in either the laws or the public. Would you rather have laws that dictate what is and isn't good media, or to allow the public to choose in the form of ratings?
especially American news worries about is ratings.
By law a corporation’s obligation is too make money for it's stock holders, to do that ratings must be as high as possible. The fault lies not in the media but in either the laws or the public. Would you rather have laws that dictate what is and isn't good media, or to allow the public to choose in the form of ratings?
All I want is people to stop saying they are standing up for freedom of the press, when infact they are trying to get a piece of controversy to get ratings. It seems to me that intentions are being covered by the defense of freedom of the press.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE especially American news worries about is ratings. By law a corporation’s obligation is too make money for it's stock holders, to do that ratings must be as high as possible. The fault lies not in the media but in either the laws or the public. Would you rather have laws that dictate what is and isn't good media, or to allow the public to choose in the form of ratings? |
All I want is people to stop saying they are standing up for freedom of the press, when infact they are trying to get a piece of controversy to get ratings. It seems to me that intentions are being covered by the defense of freedom of the press.
“Always” skewed? And what exactly are you viewing/reading? Such a blanket statement that does not reflect the majority of news casts regarding the current administration in the leaste I would dare to say.
Fair enough, maybe such a blanket statement is not warranted. However it has been my experience that News, both Canadian and American about the middle east has been skewed a fair amount. I mean, you can just look at the perception that seems to be propogated by the media (maybe its just the government?) That terrorism is because the Middle East doesn't like our freedoms.
QUOTE
I never commented on ratings or a commercial press, but the call for such a fluid gage or measure that Messenger and similar mentalities would like to see. Tabloid press, such as it is, will always have its followers. But there are also more thought provoking articles and writers that are not pursuing just the monetary reward.
I am not talking about the individual authors, but each media outlet as a company. The companies want to make money. They have a corporate responsibility to make money. Lets not forget about that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I never commented on ratings or a commercial press, but the call for such a fluid gage or measure that Messenger and similar mentalities would like to see. Tabloid press, such as it is, will always have its followers. But there are also more thought provoking articles and writers that are not pursuing just the monetary reward. |
I am not talking about the individual authors, but each media outlet as a company. The companies want to make money. They have a corporate responsibility to make money. Lets not forget about that.
Why? Because it upset people following a highly controlling religion? So I guess we must also not publish any image deemed upsetting to xians as well? How about other groups that may be “offended”?
When it is known it will offend before hand, and when one could anticipate that it would lead to violence. I don't care that its because of religion or whatever. If there is a large crowd, and someone, or a group of people are known to incite a riot is there not some sort of criminal offense there? (I truthfully don't know, but I suspect a charge of disturbing the peace, or mischief could and would be laid in such a case?). How exactly would this be considered all that different, especially when the evidence points to the fact that the cartoonist knew that such violence might be possible. Remember, we are also not talking about people just being pissed off here. Many people have already died because of this. Over a cartoon? Its completely retarded from every level. But in hindsight, do you think its smart to publish a cartoon when people can die because of it? And don't say "we can't control the reactions of others" because I know that, and am not trying to defend those actions. But knowing and predicting such a horrible outcome....would you still publish those cartoons? They are not news, and not reporting on anything.
QUOTE
Again, why? Why should anyone fear not speaking his or her mind due to the limitations of another? So you would advocate that everyone must censor themselves or be censored in order to appease the sensitivities of an extreme few? How is this any different than the actions of the past when another religion censored society?
Its very different. I am not asking for the media to be censored, but I think it isn't to much to expect that the media have some common sense. I dunno....I guess freedom of the press allows people to stop exercising common sense.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again, why? Why should anyone fear not speaking his or her mind due to the limitations of another? So you would advocate that everyone must censor themselves or be censored in order to appease the sensitivities of an extreme few? How is this any different than the actions of the past when another religion censored society? |
Its very different. I am not asking for the media to be censored, but I think it isn't to much to expect that the media have some common sense. I dunno....I guess freedom of the press allows people to stop exercising common sense.
Okay, so if someone make a statement that is factually correct but “offends” one of these superstitious fools and is attacked or harmed, the person making the factual statement is at fault? So again, using your logic, we must pander to the extremist and be censored by their sensitivities?
Ok, and if something is factual, and offends, thats fine. But please enlighten me about what was factual about these cartoons? Is depiciting Mohammad as a terrorist factual? Is it factual to imply that Islam as a religion is terrorist, and is it factual to say the founder of the religion was a terrorist? If it is factual please provide me with the references that will illustrate this to me. Most people don't have a problem when the facts are reported about a terrorist attack when the religion is pointed out of the terrorist. But then when you turn that around and imply that all members of that religion are terrorists, it is no longer fact.
QUOTE
You do not give into or support such lunacy. You stand up to it and put these reactionary superstitious barbarians in their place. The world is not going to give up freedoms to avoid the hostile reaction of religious zealots nor should it. Capitulation to such demand will hamper the freedoms of everyone.
I would not call these cartoons standing up to lunacy. I would call it mockery. I also never said to give up freedoms. It may seem to you that I am trying to justify the reactions, however if you read any or all of my posts on this subject I have been clear that the actions by the extremists is wrong and idiotic. However rather than pushing the blame on one party I feel it should be blanketed over all parties that have some responsibility. Think of it this way. If you know someone who is gay, and knows that calling them a fag makes them pissed off and violent and you go and call them a fag who's fault is it? Yours, his, or both? If you know the consequences of your action, and if you don't like the consequences wouldn't it be partly your fault from the outcome? Of course, your FREE to say whatever you want because we have freedom of speech, but does that, and should that protect you from consequences of your actions?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You do not give into or support such lunacy. You stand up to it and put these reactionary superstitious barbarians in their place. The world is not going to give up freedoms to avoid the hostile reaction of religious zealots nor should it. Capitulation to such demand will hamper the freedoms of everyone. |
I would not call these cartoons standing up to lunacy. I would call it mockery. I also never said to give up freedoms. It may seem to you that I am trying to justify the reactions, however if you read any or all of my posts on this subject I have been clear that the actions by the extremists is wrong and idiotic. However rather than pushing the blame on one party I feel it should be blanketed over all parties that have some responsibility. Think of it this way. If you know someone who is gay, and knows that calling them a fag makes them pissed off and violent and you go and call them a fag who's fault is it? Yours, his, or both? If you know the consequences of your action, and if you don't like the consequences wouldn't it be partly your fault from the outcome? Of course, your FREE to say whatever you want because we have freedom of speech, but does that, and should that protect you from consequences of your actions?
People have already given into such lunacy like removing statues of Piglet and “piggy” banks as to not offend Muslims or even shutting down a ice cream machine because the swirl “offended” a Muslim. Just how far to bend over for this idiocy?
I have never heard of these things, and your right, that is idiocy to remove those things. However using common sense is a little bit different than those examples.
QUOTE
QUOTE (GeneSplicer)
Just how far to bend over for this idiocy?
GeneSplicer: Well, that depends. If you're an "altar boy"... Sorry, couldn't resist. Alright, I could have.
Just how far to bend over for this idiocy?
GeneSplicer: Well, that depends. If you're an "altar boy"... Sorry, couldn't resist. Alright, I could have.
Thanks newguy, I needed that laugh. I feel kind of bad for laughing at that...but the quotes that surround 'alter boy' make it ok right? haha
QUOTE
Maybe you have something there - but Wikipedia is the last place I'd go for religious information - it's biased against religion.
Bias is only "bias" when it isn't YOUR bias. A secular view of religion is the best way to look at religion, otherwise you only hear about the wonderful and honorable parts that make up a religion. Look at Scientology: it's an incredible, life-affirming and empowering religion if you listen to it's adherents. But take a deep look into it and what those who have come out of it have to say, and it becomes a little darker and more sinister. The lesson? Skepticism is the best policy, and remember you have to take all sides' views with (at least) a grain of salt.
Newsie:
Glad to see you back and fighting the Good Fight. I can't speak for anyone else, but I think it's good to see a theist with some consistency back around here. I notice you got quite the three-way battle going on with the Messy One and Numbered Steve.
QUOTE (Steveo+)
Thanks newguy, I needed that laugh. I feel kind of bad for laughing at that...but the quotes that surround 'alter boy' make it ok right? haha
Steveo: You're right. It's really NOT a laughing matter. What amazes is me is that parents STILL allow their young sons to be "prey" for these "wolves". I'm literally shaking my head as I type.
sinned34: Not much of a "battle", really. After you've faced "angry mobs" while preaching on the streets...I've had people threaten to "smoke me"(shoot me) and knife me, I've been "charged at", I've had a firecracker thrown at me. Heck, I even had a "aerial attack" once...a bird "dropped one" right on my shoulder while I was preaching. Anyway, thanks for the "welcome wagon".
Steveo: You're right. It's really NOT a laughing matter. What amazes is me is that parents STILL allow their young sons to be "prey" for these "wolves". I'm literally shaking my head as I type.
sinned34: Not much of a "battle", really. After you've faced "angry mobs" while preaching on the streets...I've had people threaten to "smoke me"(shoot me) and knife me, I've been "charged at", I've had a firecracker thrown at me. Heck, I even had a "aerial attack" once...a bird "dropped one" right on my shoulder while I was preaching. Anyway, thanks for the "welcome wagon".
QUOTE
QUOTE (Steveo)
Thanks newguy, I needed that laugh. I feel kind of bad for laughing at that...but the quotes that surround 'alter boy' make it ok right? haha
Steveo: You're right. It's really NOT a laughing matter. What amazes is me is that parents STILL allow their young sons to be "prey" for these "wolves". I'm literally shaking my head as I type.
Thanks newguy, I needed that laugh. I feel kind of bad for laughing at that...but the quotes that surround 'alter boy' make it ok right? haha
Steveo: You're right. It's really NOT a laughing matter. What amazes is me is that parents STILL allow their young sons to be "prey" for these "wolves". I'm literally shaking my head as I type.
Well, it should be remembered that the majority of catholic priests are not child molesters. And I guess people have the mentallity of "that could never happen to me" or "that could never happen at our church". But I agree that it doesn't make much sense for parents to be doing this.
QUOTE (Steveo+)
Well, it should be remembered that the majority of catholic priests are not child molesters.
Steveo: Do you have any "empirical proof" to substantiate your claim??? Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Alright, I could have.
Steveo: Do you have any "empirical proof" to substantiate your claim??? Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Alright, I could have.
Whoops. The dreaded "double post". Sorry.
Steveo
I don't recall anyone creating such a fuss when Jews were depicted with Arabs babies blood dripping from their hands in the Arabic papers, or Jewish Stars of David morphing into Swastikas. These were political cartoons with NO basis in fact whereas depicting Allah in a bomb shaped turban, though offensive, has an element of truth to it.
It behooves the Muslim faith to purge themselves of the radical bombmakers before they light one too many fuses, forcing the world to kill them all and let Allah sort them out. It is rapidly approaching that point now.
Don't get me wrong, I harbor no western bias toward Christianity. I have no belief in superstitious nonsense of any sort and believe the world would be a better place without religious conflicts. But having said that I also believe in religious freedom, that you have the right to believe as you will AS LONG AS YOU DON"T TRY TO BLOW ME UP(or anybody else for that matter).
Political cartoons have a long history of pricking the overinflated egos of powerful people or organizations. This is a legitiment use of ridicule and scorn. The Muslim faith has remained silent while radicals have usurpted their religion to kill innocents and control the masses in their countries yet noone dares stand up and call it by it's name, BARBARIANISM.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Ok, and if something is factual, and offends, thats fine. But please enlighten me about what was factual about these cartoons? Is depiciting Mohammad as a terrorist factual? Is it factual to imply that Islam as a religion is terrorist, and is it factual to say the founder of the religion was a terrorist? If it is factual please provide me with the references that will illustrate this to me. Most people don't have a problem when the facts are reported about a terrorist attack when the religion is pointed out of the terrorist. But then when you turn that around and imply that all members of that religion are terrorists, it is no longer fact.
I don't recall anyone creating such a fuss when Jews were depicted with Arabs babies blood dripping from their hands in the Arabic papers, or Jewish Stars of David morphing into Swastikas. These were political cartoons with NO basis in fact whereas depicting Allah in a bomb shaped turban, though offensive, has an element of truth to it.
It behooves the Muslim faith to purge themselves of the radical bombmakers before they light one too many fuses, forcing the world to kill them all and let Allah sort them out. It is rapidly approaching that point now.
Don't get me wrong, I harbor no western bias toward Christianity. I have no belief in superstitious nonsense of any sort and believe the world would be a better place without religious conflicts. But having said that I also believe in religious freedom, that you have the right to believe as you will AS LONG AS YOU DON"T TRY TO BLOW ME UP(or anybody else for that matter).
Political cartoons have a long history of pricking the overinflated egos of powerful people or organizations. This is a legitiment use of ridicule and scorn. The Muslim faith has remained silent while radicals have usurpted their religion to kill innocents and control the masses in their countries yet noone dares stand up and call it by it's name, BARBARIANISM.
Grumpy
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 13 2006, 03:14 PM)
QUOTE (Steveo+)
Thanks newguy, I needed that laugh. I feel kind of bad for laughing at that...but the quotes that surround 'alter boy' make it ok right? haha
Steveo: You're right. It's really NOT a laughing matter. What amazes is me is that parents STILL allow their young sons to be "prey" for these "wolves". I'm literally shaking my head as I type.
sinned34: Not much of a "battle", really. After you've faced "angry mobs" while preaching on the streets...I've had people threaten to "smoke me"(shoot me) and knife me, I've been "charged at", I've had a firecracker thrown at me. [B]Heck, I even had a "aerial attack" once...a bird "dropped one" right on my shoulder while I was preaching. [/B] Anyway, thanks for the "welcome wagon".
NewGuy,
A MESSAGE FROM GOD NO DOUBT!!
A reward from above for your talent!
Ha Ha Ha - I just couldn't resist! Well, yes I could have, but...
...I am so funny, I amuse myself sometimes!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the cartoons....
Newspapers and their reporters are supposed to report the news - they're not supposed to instigate riots and murders.
The media has gotten completely out of control. They should be called the extreme radical media - like the radical Muslims and other extremists.
The radical media, in my opinion, are traitorous. Take this video of British soldiers beating Iraqi rebel rousers - it just came out like two days ago - but it happened 2 years ago!! The only purpose for releasing this now is to stir up trouble. The media doesn't often report the good things that are happening.
I don't recall anyone creating such a fuss when Jews were depicted with Arabs babies blood dripping from their hands in the Arabic papers, or Jewish Stars of David morphing into Swastikas. These were political cartoons with NO basis in fact whereas depicting Allah in a bomb shaped turban, though offensive, has an element of truth to it.
Well, I have never seen, or even heard of those cartoons, but I hope you trust that I would be arguing just as strongly about the stupidity of these news outlets and cartoonists. I still don't see any element in truth in depicting Mohammad with a bomb shaped Turban....The truth is that many of these terrorists have been members of islam. Mohammad is the founder of Islam, not a terrorist (if he was a terrorist I require proof of this). By what I can see from the truth you have said partially exists then you could draw a cartoon with Jesus and something that implies a bomb, and its true because there have been christian terrorist before. Or how about lets look up the statistics on the number of terrorists that are men, and maybe we can use a cartoon that implies all men are terrorists. Unless you have some information that I either don't know, or I am somehow missing something, I do not see one grain of truth from those cartoons.
Well, I have never seen, or even heard of those cartoons, but I hope you trust that I would be arguing just as strongly about the stupidity of these news outlets and cartoonists. I still don't see any element in truth in depicting Mohammad with a bomb shaped Turban....The truth is that many of these terrorists have been members of islam. Mohammad is the founder of Islam, not a terrorist (if he was a terrorist I require proof of this). By what I can see from the truth you have said partially exists then you could draw a cartoon with Jesus and something that implies a bomb, and its true because there have been christian terrorist before. Or how about lets look up the statistics on the number of terrorists that are men, and maybe we can use a cartoon that implies all men are terrorists. Unless you have some information that I either don't know, or I am somehow missing something, I do not see one grain of truth from those cartoons.
Political cartoons have a long history of pricking the overinflated egos of powerful people or organizations. This is a legitiment use of ridicule and scorn. The Muslim faith has remained silent while radicals have usurpted their religion to kill innocents and control the masses in their countries yet noone dares stand up and call it by it's name, BARBARIANISM.
Now, I am no student of political cartoons, and am unaware of the history of them. But I would agree that the term for what radicals are doing to their religion is barbarianism.
Hahaha, well I don't have empirical proof for my claim, but do you have proof that the majority of catholic priests have a thing for alter boys?
Steveo: You're right. It's really NOT a laughing matter. What amazes is me is that parents STILL allow their young sons to be "prey" for these "wolves". I'm literally shaking my head as I type.
sinned34: Not much of a "battle", really. After you've faced "angry mobs" while preaching on the streets...I've had people threaten to "smoke me"(shoot me) and knife me, I've been "charged at", I've had a firecracker thrown at me. [B]Heck, I even had a "aerial attack" once...a bird "dropped one" right on my shoulder while I was preaching. [/B] Anyway, thanks for the "welcome wagon".
NewGuy,
A MESSAGE FROM GOD NO DOUBT!!
A reward from above for your talent!
Ha Ha Ha - I just couldn't resist! Well, yes I could have, but...
...I am so funny, I amuse myself sometimes!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the cartoons....
Newspapers and their reporters are supposed to report the news - they're not supposed to instigate riots and murders.
The media has gotten completely out of control. They should be called the extreme radical media - like the radical Muslims and other extremists.
The radical media, in my opinion, are traitorous. Take this video of British soldiers beating Iraqi rebel rousers - it just came out like two days ago - but it happened 2 years ago!! The only purpose for releasing this now is to stir up trouble. The media doesn't often report the good things that are happening.
QUOTE (newguy+Feb 13 2006, 09:14 PM)
Heck, I even had a "aerial attack" once...a bird "dropped one" right on my shoulder while I was preaching. Anyway, thanks for the "welcome wagon".
newguy: This bird was the proof I need to accept intelligent design.
newguy: This bird was the proof I need to accept intelligent design.
QUOTE
I don't recall anyone creating such a fuss when Jews were depicted with Arabs babies blood dripping from their hands in the Arabic papers, or Jewish Stars of David morphing into Swastikas. These were political cartoons with NO basis in fact whereas depicting Allah in a bomb shaped turban, though offensive, has an element of truth to it.
Well, I have never seen, or even heard of those cartoons, but I hope you trust that I would be arguing just as strongly about the stupidity of these news outlets and cartoonists. I still don't see any element in truth in depicting Mohammad with a bomb shaped Turban....The truth is that many of these terrorists have been members of islam. Mohammad is the founder of Islam, not a terrorist (if he was a terrorist I require proof of this). By what I can see from the truth you have said partially exists then you could draw a cartoon with Jesus and something that implies a bomb, and its true because there have been christian terrorist before. Or how about lets look up the statistics on the number of terrorists that are men, and maybe we can use a cartoon that implies all men are terrorists. Unless you have some information that I either don't know, or I am somehow missing something, I do not see one grain of truth from those cartoons.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I don't recall anyone creating such a fuss when Jews were depicted with Arabs babies blood dripping from their hands in the Arabic papers, or Jewish Stars of David morphing into Swastikas. These were political cartoons with NO basis in fact whereas depicting Allah in a bomb shaped turban, though offensive, has an element of truth to it. |
Well, I have never seen, or even heard of those cartoons, but I hope you trust that I would be arguing just as strongly about the stupidity of these news outlets and cartoonists. I still don't see any element in truth in depicting Mohammad with a bomb shaped Turban....The truth is that many of these terrorists have been members of islam. Mohammad is the founder of Islam, not a terrorist (if he was a terrorist I require proof of this). By what I can see from the truth you have said partially exists then you could draw a cartoon with Jesus and something that implies a bomb, and its true because there have been christian terrorist before. Or how about lets look up the statistics on the number of terrorists that are men, and maybe we can use a cartoon that implies all men are terrorists. Unless you have some information that I either don't know, or I am somehow missing something, I do not see one grain of truth from those cartoons.
Political cartoons have a long history of pricking the overinflated egos of powerful people or organizations. This is a legitiment use of ridicule and scorn. The Muslim faith has remained silent while radicals have usurpted their religion to kill innocents and control the masses in their countries yet noone dares stand up and call it by it's name, BARBARIANISM.
Now, I am no student of political cartoons, and am unaware of the history of them. But I would agree that the term for what radicals are doing to their religion is barbarianism.
QUOTE
QUOTE (Steveo)
Well, it should be remembered that the majority of catholic priests are not child molesters.
Steveo: Do you have any "empirical proof" to substantiate your claim??? Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Alright, I could have.
Well, it should be remembered that the majority of catholic priests are not child molesters.
Steveo: Do you have any "empirical proof" to substantiate your claim??? Sorry, I just couldn't resist. Alright, I could have.
Hahaha, well I don't have empirical proof for my claim, but do you have proof that the majority of catholic priests have a thing for alter boys?
Steveo,
Sorry I have not replied sooner. A scheduled trip to the oral butcher (some call them dentists) yesterday turned into an hour and a half of “minor” surgery. This included a sizable amount of screaming, blood, pain and physical damage that will take an estimated 4 weeks to heal, but on a positive note, I am told the “dentist” will make a full recovery.
Let me first state that on many points you made we agree, but (yes there always seems to be one) I disagree with not printing something due to knowing that someone will be offended and that some may die over the matter.
You ask if Mohammad was a terrorist. By using a modern rational view of what the religion of Islam calls for as advocated by its founder, I would say yes. Christianity was and still is capable of producing equally as violent of religious zealots and you are absolutely correct about xian terrorists. A person only needs to look back a few decades in order to find examples of this.
I am also in agreement with and have stated similar views as Grumpy has regarding religion. I am not anti-religion as in wishing to see it expunged from our society. Do I think that our society would be better off? Of course, but I support the individuals right to choose what to believe in.
Islam will only survive if it becomes as secular as modern Christianity has become. While I keep hearing about how moderate Muslims do not support these terrorists acts, I not how few of the mainstream Muslim organizations do not actively condemn these acts unless called upon to do so. These organizations however have no problem in condemning idiotic things like a cartoon of Mohammed or the piggy bank issue that occurred in Great Brittan. You have to understand that this goes far beyond a cartoon of Mohammad or a character but even just making a respectful picture of Mohammad would evoke the exact same reaction.
As Grumpy mentioned, you do not see the same reaction from/for the other religions. CNN and others had no problem publishing the picture of xian religion symbols in urine or covered in elephant dung, but will not publish these cartoons.
What religions have you studied or looked into? I ask this in all sincerity. I would ask anyone who supports the rights of the individual to read up on dhimmitude. Your view of Islam might change once you discover just exactly what it calls for the non-muslim. Add the treatment of women, freedoms and several other poitns made by others and I think you will come to see that Islam in its orthodox version is what anyone who embrases personal freedoms would call a terroist organization.
One last fact about Islam. I have been told that this is true by even what would be ocnsidered secular Muslims. If one becomes a Muslim and the word of Allah is “revealed” upon him or her and he or she jects or chooses not to follow Islam, then he or she is “worthy” of death as decreed by the religion of Islam.
Faith can be a great thing in ones life as can religion, but when either call upon the adherent to violate another person’s rights or demands the harm of others, I see that faith and religion as something not worthy of preservation. Some may think me in error on this matter. So be it. I would rather have a community of living, breathing and free heathens than a smaller theocratic community of adherents, martyrs and the vanquished.
Sorry I have not replied sooner. A scheduled trip to the oral butcher (some call them dentists) yesterday turned into an hour and a half of “minor” surgery. This included a sizable amount of screaming, blood, pain and physical damage that will take an estimated 4 weeks to heal, but on a positive note, I am told the “dentist” will make a full recovery.
Let me first state that on many points you made we agree, but (yes there always seems to be one) I disagree with not printing something due to knowing that someone will be offended and that some may die over the matter.
You ask if Mohammad was a terrorist. By using a modern rational view of what the religion of Islam calls for as advocated by its founder, I would say yes. Christianity was and still is capable of producing equally as violent of religious zealots and you are absolutely correct about xian terrorists. A person only needs to look back a few decades in order to find examples of this.
I am also in agreement with and have stated similar views as Grumpy has regarding religion. I am not anti-religion as in wishing to see it expunged from our society. Do I think that our society would be better off? Of course, but I support the individuals right to choose what to believe in.
Islam will only survive if it becomes as secular as modern Christianity has become. While I keep hearing about how moderate Muslims do not support these terrorists acts, I not how few of the mainstream Muslim organizations do not actively condemn these acts unless called upon to do so. These organizations however have no problem in condemning idiotic things like a cartoon of Mohammed or the piggy bank issue that occurred in Great Brittan. You have to understand that this goes far beyond a cartoon of Mohammad or a character but even just making a respectful picture of Mohammad would evoke the exact same reaction.
As Grumpy mentioned, you do not see the same reaction from/for the other religions. CNN and others had no problem publishing the picture of xian religion symbols in urine or covered in elephant dung, but will not publish these cartoons.
What religions have you studied or looked into? I ask this in all sincerity. I would ask anyone who supports the rights of the individual to read up on dhimmitude. Your view of Islam might change once you discover just exactly what it calls for the non-muslim. Add the treatment of women, freedoms and several other poitns made by others and I think you will come to see that Islam in its orthodox version is what anyone who embrases personal freedoms would call a terroist organization.
One last fact about Islam. I have been told that this is true by even what would be ocnsidered secular Muslims. If one becomes a Muslim and the word of Allah is “revealed” upon him or her and he or she jects or chooses not to follow Islam, then he or she is “worthy” of death as decreed by the religion of Islam.
Faith can be a great thing in ones life as can religion, but when either call upon the adherent to violate another person’s rights or demands the harm of others, I see that faith and religion as something not worthy of preservation. Some may think me in error on this matter. So be it. I would rather have a community of living, breathing and free heathens than a smaller theocratic community of adherents, martyrs and the vanquished.
Genesplicer...the good old Dentist...I have had some great (aka painful) memories of that institution as well. What a great job it must be (not really) being able to inflict pain on people and take their money while your at it.
I think in the original form, most of the monotheistic religions are very intolerant of other religions. I know Christianity is very similar in that respect.
I think in the original form, most of the monotheistic religions are very intolerant of other religions. I know Christianity is very similar in that respect.
What religions have you studied or looked into? I ask this in all sincerity. I would ask anyone who supports the rights of the individual to read up on dhimmitude. Your view of Islam might change once you discover just exactly what it calls for the non-muslim. Add the treatment of women, freedoms and several other poitns made by others and I think you will come to see that Islam in its orthodox version is what anyone who embrases personal freedoms would call a terroist organization.
Most of my studies of religion have not been from reading texts, but from talking to followers. I have known many muslims over the years and learned a great deal about their religion, but sadly have not read any of the texts. Mainly from a lack of time. My curiosity surpasses my time by leaps and bounds, and as physics I find the most interesting, takes up most of my time devoted to learning. Maybe if I am lucky, invent something and get really rich I can retire at 25 and spend the rest of my life learning about all of the things that interest me, although I am not holding my breath on that part.
Now, in all truthfulness, my problems with all of this don't really have much to do with Islam at all. The west always seems to me to be on its high horse talking about how morally superior it is, and how the Islamic world is so backwards. And for the most part, the people I know of intelligent are quite moral people. Very respectful of others, even if it could be justified not to be. But then when it comes to freedom of the press they decide to drop all of their morals and piss people off because they can. In recent days I have come to think of publishing this offensive cartoon similar to the case where you see a Muslim walking down the street. Now, would you get in this person's face and scream that they were a terrorist? Now, to me this cartoon seems to be doing the same thing, except blindly to all muslims and in a setting that gets through to way more people. If you wouldn't call a muslim a terrorist on the street, how could you justify to yourself to publish something like that? I just think how can we expect the muslim world to adapt to our morals (which the majority of the west things they should do, from my experience) if we can't even follow our own morals?
Here is something to Ponder. As Grendle and Sinned I am sure are aware, the Western Standard (a right wing christian bimonthly newspaper) and the Jewish Free Press (a Jewish Newspaper) have recently decided to reprint these cartoons. I saw an interview with the Editor of the Western Standard, and he said he was reprinting the cartoons now because they are the central piece to one of the biggest news stories in the world. And he has a point there, it is, and now, there is some justification to publish it, however, being that it is news, and seeings how much violence has erupted from it, reprinting these cartoons could also cause more violence, and essentially disturb the peace, both at home in Canada, and across the world, plus it could even hurt the country economically. Now the question is, what right is more important, freedom of the press, or doing your part not to put other people's lives at risk? I am saying it comes down to personal choice, because we do have the right to publish whatever we want (well, there are limits of course), but morally what do you consider more important? freedom of the press, or human life? Thats how I see this situation, and if I was an editor, I would never publish something if I knew it might cause people to do, even if I thought that it would be incredibily retarded for people to die over it (which I do......the fact that all of this violence has happened is pretty stupid). So I guess, first if people could critic the way I am seeing things, because clearly other people could see this much differently than me, but also, answer that question personally, if you were the editor of a paper, what right would you consider more important?
I don't know if I would agree with society being better off. If everyone in society was like me, it sure would be. But there are many people who genuinely become better people through religion, such as newguy. You, me, and others may think that it really boils down to selfish motives (like eternal life in heaven, or whatever) but when it boils down to it, if they are better people because of it, what does it matter. Although maybe if there were statistics for how many people became better people through religion compared to how many people became self righteous pricks who used religion to justify their bad behavior I could form a better opinion. haha.
I don't know if I would agree with society being better off. If everyone in society was like me, it sure would be. But there are many people who genuinely become better people through religion, such as newguy. You, me, and others may think that it really boils down to selfish motives (like eternal life in heaven, or whatever) but when it boils down to it, if they are better people because of it, what does it matter. Although maybe if there were statistics for how many people became better people through religion compared to how many people became self righteous pricks who used religion to justify their bad behavior I could form a better opinion. haha.
As Grumpy mentioned, you do not see the same reaction from/for the other religions. CNN and others had no problem publishing the picture of xian religion symbols in urine or covered in elephant dung, but will not publish these cartoons.
Your right, we don't see similar reactions, thank god. However since I am not to familiar with the other cases (whether I didn't actually know they happened, or didn't pay any attention to them because I didn't think they were a big deal), but I am not certain if the situations were similar. I think often the christian symbols are done by people within the culture (I could be very wrong, as I am just guessing here), but this was one culture, European culture, mocking, and stereotyping another culture.
Just yesterday I read an article in my campus newspaper by a Muslim who spent time working in Denmark. He first hand experienced lots of racism there. Apparently even second generation Danes who are of different ethnicity are not even considered first class citizens. Unfortunately I have been unable to locate the article so I could post it.
My stereotype of the oral butcher would be Steve Martin’s character in the remake of Little Shop of Horrors. For some reason, I was torn between laughing and cringing. There used to be a secretary I worked with who feared the dentist as in phobia. A fellow employee discovered that not only could he replicate the sound a dentist’s drill makes by using a can of compressed air and a small Pentium class (original Pentium) cooling fan but that said sound made this poor woman instantly shut up and cover her mouth. Luckily, I do not have such a fear.
My stereotype of the oral butcher would be Steve Martin’s character in the remake of Little Shop of Horrors. For some reason, I was torn between laughing and cringing. There used to be a secretary I worked with who feared the dentist as in phobia. A fellow employee discovered that not only could he replicate the sound a dentist’s drill makes by using a can of compressed air and a small Pentium class (original Pentium) cooling fan but that said sound made this poor woman instantly shut up and cover her mouth. Luckily, I do not have such a fear.
My curiosity surpasses my time by leaps and bounds,
I can relate to that. I find most of my time is taken up in reading and research for my job. It has gotten so bad at times that I have resorted to audio books to catch up on some titles if possible. Poor substitute for reading though.
I tend to avoid making blanket statements. After years of engaging others in debate, I quickly came to realize the diversity of opinions and combinations thereof in the people I meet. I would however disagree with your assumption here. I do not see the cartoon as being akin to calling every Muslim a terrorist. To me and others it reflect the concerns and related actions of the more orthodox followers of Islam. I look upon this no different than the cartoons published during the rash of abortion clinic bombings pointing to how many representatives of the xian faith were less than quick to condemn such actions. It does not reflect negatively on all xians at the time, but calls attention to a problem within their collective faith. Same with the current state of Islam.
I tend to avoid making blanket statements. After years of engaging others in debate, I quickly came to realize the diversity of opinions and combinations thereof in the people I meet. I would however disagree with your assumption here. I do not see the cartoon as being akin to calling every Muslim a terrorist. To me and others it reflect the concerns and related actions of the more orthodox followers of Islam. I look upon this no different than the cartoons published during the rash of abortion clinic bombings pointing to how many representatives of the xian faith were less than quick to condemn such actions. It does not reflect negatively on all xians at the time, but calls attention to a problem within their collective faith. Same with the current state of Islam.
So I guess, first if people could critic the way I am seeing things, because clearly other people could see this much differently than me, but also, answer that question personally, if you were the editor of a paper, what right would you consider more important?
Well that would first of all depend on the time. If I assume you mean if I were an editor right now after the turmoil has begun. That is a difficult one to decide and not one I would do flippantly. In such a position I would have to consider the lives of the people that work for the newspaper and the environment/country I live in. I would not hesitate to do so in America, however in Western Europe, that would be a different matter.
With all due respect to newguy, I think he would fit into a category of people I think use religion to bring out what was already in them. In other words, I think that given the same responsibilities sans religion that newguy would rise to the challenge of being the person he knew he had to be for his wife and more importantly his children.
You are correct that there are people who are better off with religion, but I think people do not recognize that many of the accolades they heap upon their particular religion originate within themselves and the faith was a crutch. But, to each his own.
With all due respect to newguy, I think he would fit into a category of people I think use religion to bring out what was already in them. In other words, I think that given the same responsibilities sans religion that newguy would rise to the challenge of being the person he knew he had to be for his wife and more importantly his children.
You are correct that there are people who are better off with religion, but I think people do not recognize that many of the accolades they heap upon their particular religion originate within themselves and the faith was a crutch. But, to each his own.
Your right, we don't see similar reactions, thank god. However since I am not to familiar with the other cases (whether I didn't actually know they happened, or didn't pay any attention to them because I didn't think they were a big deal), but I am not certain if the situations were similar. I think often the christian symbols are done by people within the culture (I could be very wrong, as I am just guessing here), but this was one culture, European culture, mocking, and stereotyping another culture.
You are correct for the most part that the xian symbols were critiqued by people within the US culture for lack of a better word. Again though, I think the cartoons are critiques and not meant as insults.
A similar trend is with politically correct speech. The impact upon comedy alone in the US and honest critiques. Debates and questions has had a chilling effect on free speech. Instead of addressing the topic in earnest, labels ranging from fascists to traitor to racist are used to stifle or bury such discussions.
Just because someone is talking or writing does not mean that you have to listen or read what he or she has presented. For some, this is unacceptable. Anything considered wrong or insulting must be silenced. This is what I have a problem with regardless of the source of the attempt to silence.
QUOTE
You ask if Mohammad was a terrorist. By using a modern rational view of what the religion of Islam calls for as advocated by its founder, I would say yes. Christianity was and still is capable of producing equally as violent of religious zealots and you are absolutely correct about xian terrorists. A person only needs to look back a few decades in order to find examples of this.
I think in the original form, most of the monotheistic religions are very intolerant of other religions. I know Christianity is very similar in that respect.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You ask if Mohammad was a terrorist. By using a modern rational view of what the religion of Islam calls for as advocated by its founder, I would say yes. Christianity was and still is capable of producing equally as violent of religious zealots and you are absolutely correct about xian terrorists. A person only needs to look back a few decades in order to find examples of this. |
I think in the original form, most of the monotheistic religions are very intolerant of other religions. I know Christianity is very similar in that respect.
What religions have you studied or looked into? I ask this in all sincerity. I would ask anyone who supports the rights of the individual to read up on dhimmitude. Your view of Islam might change once you discover just exactly what it calls for the non-muslim. Add the treatment of women, freedoms and several other poitns made by others and I think you will come to see that Islam in its orthodox version is what anyone who embrases personal freedoms would call a terroist organization.
Most of my studies of religion have not been from reading texts, but from talking to followers. I have known many muslims over the years and learned a great deal about their religion, but sadly have not read any of the texts. Mainly from a lack of time. My curiosity surpasses my time by leaps and bounds, and as physics I find the most interesting, takes up most of my time devoted to learning. Maybe if I am lucky, invent something and get really rich I can retire at 25 and spend the rest of my life learning about all of the things that interest me, although I am not holding my breath on that part.
Now, in all truthfulness, my problems with all of this don't really have much to do with Islam at all. The west always seems to me to be on its high horse talking about how morally superior it is, and how the Islamic world is so backwards. And for the most part, the people I know of intelligent are quite moral people. Very respectful of others, even if it could be justified not to be. But then when it comes to freedom of the press they decide to drop all of their morals and piss people off because they can. In recent days I have come to think of publishing this offensive cartoon similar to the case where you see a Muslim walking down the street. Now, would you get in this person's face and scream that they were a terrorist? Now, to me this cartoon seems to be doing the same thing, except blindly to all muslims and in a setting that gets through to way more people. If you wouldn't call a muslim a terrorist on the street, how could you justify to yourself to publish something like that? I just think how can we expect the muslim world to adapt to our morals (which the majority of the west things they should do, from my experience) if we can't even follow our own morals?
Here is something to Ponder. As Grendle and Sinned I am sure are aware, the Western Standard (a right wing christian bimonthly newspaper) and the Jewish Free Press (a Jewish Newspaper) have recently decided to reprint these cartoons. I saw an interview with the Editor of the Western Standard, and he said he was reprinting the cartoons now because they are the central piece to one of the biggest news stories in the world. And he has a point there, it is, and now, there is some justification to publish it, however, being that it is news, and seeings how much violence has erupted from it, reprinting these cartoons could also cause more violence, and essentially disturb the peace, both at home in Canada, and across the world, plus it could even hurt the country economically. Now the question is, what right is more important, freedom of the press, or doing your part not to put other people's lives at risk? I am saying it comes down to personal choice, because we do have the right to publish whatever we want (well, there are limits of course), but morally what do you consider more important? freedom of the press, or human life? Thats how I see this situation, and if I was an editor, I would never publish something if I knew it might cause people to do, even if I thought that it would be incredibily retarded for people to die over it (which I do......the fact that all of this violence has happened is pretty stupid). So I guess, first if people could critic the way I am seeing things, because clearly other people could see this much differently than me, but also, answer that question personally, if you were the editor of a paper, what right would you consider more important?
QUOTE
I am also in agreement with and have stated similar views as Grumpy has regarding religion. I am not anti-religion as in wishing to see it expunged from our society. Do I think that our society would be better off? Of course, but I support the individuals right to choose what to believe in.
I don't know if I would agree with society being better off. If everyone in society was like me, it sure would be. But there are many people who genuinely become better people through religion, such as newguy. You, me, and others may think that it really boils down to selfish motives (like eternal life in heaven, or whatever) but when it boils down to it, if they are better people because of it, what does it matter. Although maybe if there were statistics for how many people became better people through religion compared to how many people became self righteous pricks who used religion to justify their bad behavior I could form a better opinion. haha.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I am also in agreement with and have stated similar views as Grumpy has regarding religion. I am not anti-religion as in wishing to see it expunged from our society. Do I think that our society would be better off? Of course, but I support the individuals right to choose what to believe in. |
I don't know if I would agree with society being better off. If everyone in society was like me, it sure would be. But there are many people who genuinely become better people through religion, such as newguy. You, me, and others may think that it really boils down to selfish motives (like eternal life in heaven, or whatever) but when it boils down to it, if they are better people because of it, what does it matter. Although maybe if there were statistics for how many people became better people through religion compared to how many people became self righteous pricks who used religion to justify their bad behavior I could form a better opinion. haha.
As Grumpy mentioned, you do not see the same reaction from/for the other religions. CNN and others had no problem publishing the picture of xian religion symbols in urine or covered in elephant dung, but will not publish these cartoons.
Your right, we don't see similar reactions, thank god. However since I am not to familiar with the other cases (whether I didn't actually know they happened, or didn't pay any attention to them because I didn't think they were a big deal), but I am not certain if the situations were similar. I think often the christian symbols are done by people within the culture (I could be very wrong, as I am just guessing here), but this was one culture, European culture, mocking, and stereotyping another culture.
Just yesterday I read an article in my campus newspaper by a Muslim who spent time working in Denmark. He first hand experienced lots of racism there. Apparently even second generation Danes who are of different ethnicity are not even considered first class citizens. Unfortunately I have been unable to locate the article so I could post it.
QUOTE
Genesplicer...the good old Dentist...I have had some great (aka painful) memories of that institution as well. What a great job it must be (not really) being able to inflict pain on people and take their money while your at it.
My stereotype of the oral butcher would be Steve Martin’s character in the remake of Little Shop of Horrors. For some reason, I was torn between laughing and cringing. There used to be a secretary I worked with who feared the dentist as in phobia. A fellow employee discovered that not only could he replicate the sound a dentist’s drill makes by using a can of compressed air and a small Pentium class (original Pentium) cooling fan but that said sound made this poor woman instantly shut up and cover her mouth. Luckily, I do not have such a fear.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Genesplicer...the good old Dentist...I have had some great (aka painful) memories of that institution as well. What a great job it must be (not really) being able to inflict pain on people and take their money while your at it. |
My stereotype of the oral butcher would be Steve Martin’s character in the remake of Little Shop of Horrors. For some reason, I was torn between laughing and cringing. There used to be a secretary I worked with who feared the dentist as in phobia. A fellow employee discovered that not only could he replicate the sound a dentist’s drill makes by using a can of compressed air and a small Pentium class (original Pentium) cooling fan but that said sound made this poor woman instantly shut up and cover her mouth. Luckily, I do not have such a fear.
My curiosity surpasses my time by leaps and bounds,
I can relate to that. I find most of my time is taken up in reading and research for my job. It has gotten so bad at times that I have resorted to audio books to catch up on some titles if possible. Poor substitute for reading though.
QUOTE
Now, would you get in this person's face and scream that they were a terrorist? Now, to me this cartoon seems to be doing the same thing, except blindly to all muslims and in a setting that gets through to way more people. If you wouldn't call a muslim a terrorist on the street, how could you justify to yourself to publish something like that?
I tend to avoid making blanket statements. After years of engaging others in debate, I quickly came to realize the diversity of opinions and combinations thereof in the people I meet. I would however disagree with your assumption here. I do not see the cartoon as being akin to calling every Muslim a terrorist. To me and others it reflect the concerns and related actions of the more orthodox followers of Islam. I look upon this no different than the cartoons published during the rash of abortion clinic bombings pointing to how many representatives of the xian faith were less than quick to condemn such actions. It does not reflect negatively on all xians at the time, but calls attention to a problem within their collective faith. Same with the current state of Islam.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Now, would you get in this person's face and scream that they were a terrorist? Now, to me this cartoon seems to be doing the same thing, except blindly to all muslims and in a setting that gets through to way more people. If you wouldn't call a muslim a terrorist on the street, how could you justify to yourself to publish something like that? |
I tend to avoid making blanket statements. After years of engaging others in debate, I quickly came to realize the diversity of opinions and combinations thereof in the people I meet. I would however disagree with your assumption here. I do not see the cartoon as being akin to calling every Muslim a terrorist. To me and others it reflect the concerns and related actions of the more orthodox followers of Islam. I look upon this no different than the cartoons published during the rash of abortion clinic bombings pointing to how many representatives of the xian faith were less than quick to condemn such actions. It does not reflect negatively on all xians at the time, but calls attention to a problem within their collective faith. Same with the current state of Islam.
So I guess, first if people could critic the way I am seeing things, because clearly other people could see this much differently than me, but also, answer that question personally, if you were the editor of a paper, what right would you consider more important?
Well that would first of all depend on the time. If I assume you mean if I were an editor right now after the turmoil has begun. That is a difficult one to decide and not one I would do flippantly. In such a position I would have to consider the lives of the people that work for the newspaper and the environment/country I live in. I would not hesitate to do so in America, however in Western Europe, that would be a different matter.
QUOTE
But there are many people who genuinely become better people through religion, such as newguy.
With all due respect to newguy, I think he would fit into a category of people I think use religion to bring out what was already in them. In other words, I think that given the same responsibilities sans religion that newguy would rise to the challenge of being the person he knew he had to be for his wife and more importantly his children.
You are correct that there are people who are better off with religion, but I think people do not recognize that many of the accolades they heap upon their particular religion originate within themselves and the faith was a crutch. But, to each his own.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But there are many people who genuinely become better people through religion, such as newguy. |
With all due respect to newguy, I think he would fit into a category of people I think use religion to bring out what was already in them. In other words, I think that given the same responsibilities sans religion that newguy would rise to the challenge of being the person he knew he had to be for his wife and more importantly his children.
You are correct that there are people who are better off with religion, but I think people do not recognize that many of the accolades they heap upon their particular religion originate within themselves and the faith was a crutch. But, to each his own.
Your right, we don't see similar reactions, thank god. However since I am not to familiar with the other cases (whether I didn't actually know they happened, or didn't pay any attention to them because I didn't think they were a big deal), but I am not certain if the situations were similar. I think often the christian symbols are done by people within the culture (I could be very wrong, as I am just guessing here), but this was one culture, European culture, mocking, and stereotyping another culture.
You are correct for the most part that the xian symbols were critiqued by people within the US culture for lack of a better word. Again though, I think the cartoons are critiques and not meant as insults.
A similar trend is with politically correct speech. The impact upon comedy alone in the US and honest critiques. Debates and questions has had a chilling effect on free speech. Instead of addressing the topic in earnest, labels ranging from fascists to traitor to racist are used to stifle or bury such discussions.
Just because someone is talking or writing does not mean that you have to listen or read what he or she has presented. For some, this is unacceptable. Anything considered wrong or insulting must be silenced. This is what I have a problem with regardless of the source of the attempt to silence.
GeneSplicer
Speaking of Dentists, the most effective technique was proposed by a buddy of mine several years ago.
He suggested that I reach out and take a firm grip on the doctors privates and say "Now, let's not hurt each other, OK?". This sounded like it would be effective!!!
I hate to crack on the teachings of anyone's religion but any Holy book which suggests that a person who does not accept your diety immediately should be "worthy of death" should be seriously questioned. Likewise promising 72 virgins in paradise for dying in the commision of murdering infidels is not a religion conducive to living together or to tolerance for others.
Muslims are not alone in having religious beliefs which are intolerant but most of the others have "civilized" themselves when it comes to the most aggregious tenets of their faith.
Part of the problem is generated by the leaders of the faith and those of the countries they are in. Individually the people of that faith are better than average for religious followers in their moral behavior and getting along with others.
All religions have their extremists, some are worse than others(extreme Buddists are a little nutty, but seldom dangerous). But the nutcases in the Islamic world seem to be in charge of the mental ward.
I'm sure many will disagree with what I just said, but the proof is on the evening news. Jihad, Fatwa, bombings, Death to America, Death to Denmark(a completely inoffensive country), Death to Kentucky Fried Chicken, all because someone dared print a cartoon as offensive to Islam as the hundreds of Arab paper's cartoons have been to Isreal. Now we have Iran(an Islamic theocracy) developing Abombs and promising to use them on Isreal(who, by the way has it's own nutjobs to deal with)
The time is long past when civilization can afford to allow these types of idiotic conflicts to light fuses throughout the world. Unfortunately for the millions of moderate Muslims our smart bombs are not smart enough to read the minds or intentions of those on which they fall. If it comes to a war many will die who are innocent. These are called colateral damage.
So what is the solution when those waging Holy War(there's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) hide in a Mosque or behind a group of women and children? How can we seperate the Ben Ladens from the moderate?
We cannot!!! The only ones who can ARE the moderates!!! If it is important enough for them they could expel the nutjob clerics and Jihadists from their midst and cleanse their own house of this evil!!!
Well, it might be a good time to start right now, because the western countries are tired of the behavior of the nutjobs, and if we get cranked into a real wartime economy and actually start fighting a war, it will be too late and too bad for us all.
Harsh??? No, realistic and pragmatic. Sometimes you must speak truth even if it hurts to avoid much greater pain in the future. Those of the Islamic faith must take back their religion from those evil aholes who are giving it a bad name!!!
Grumpy
Speaking of Dentists, the most effective technique was proposed by a buddy of mine several years ago.
He suggested that I reach out and take a firm grip on the doctors privates and say "Now, let's not hurt each other, OK?". This sounded like it would be effective!!!
I hate to crack on the teachings of anyone's religion but any Holy book which suggests that a person who does not accept your diety immediately should be "worthy of death" should be seriously questioned. Likewise promising 72 virgins in paradise for dying in the commision of murdering infidels is not a religion conducive to living together or to tolerance for others.
Muslims are not alone in having religious beliefs which are intolerant but most of the others have "civilized" themselves when it comes to the most aggregious tenets of their faith.
Part of the problem is generated by the leaders of the faith and those of the countries they are in. Individually the people of that faith are better than average for religious followers in their moral behavior and getting along with others.
All religions have their extremists, some are worse than others(extreme Buddists are a little nutty, but seldom dangerous). But the nutcases in the Islamic world seem to be in charge of the mental ward.
I'm sure many will disagree with what I just said, but the proof is on the evening news. Jihad, Fatwa, bombings, Death to America, Death to Denmark(a completely inoffensive country), Death to Kentucky Fried Chicken, all because someone dared print a cartoon as offensive to Islam as the hundreds of Arab paper's cartoons have been to Isreal. Now we have Iran(an Islamic theocracy) developing Abombs and promising to use them on Isreal(who, by the way has it's own nutjobs to deal with)
The time is long past when civilization can afford to allow these types of idiotic conflicts to light fuses throughout the world. Unfortunately for the millions of moderate Muslims our smart bombs are not smart enough to read the minds or intentions of those on which they fall. If it comes to a war many will die who are innocent. These are called colateral damage.
So what is the solution when those waging Holy War(there's an oxymoron if I've ever heard one) hide in a Mosque or behind a group of women and children? How can we seperate the Ben Ladens from the moderate?
We cannot!!! The only ones who can ARE the moderates!!! If it is important enough for them they could expel the nutjob clerics and Jihadists from their midst and cleanse their own house of this evil!!!
Well, it might be a good time to start right now, because the western countries are tired of the behavior of the nutjobs, and if we get cranked into a real wartime economy and actually start fighting a war, it will be too late and too bad for us all.
Harsh??? No, realistic and pragmatic. Sometimes you must speak truth even if it hurts to avoid much greater pain in the future. Those of the Islamic faith must take back their religion from those evil aholes who are giving it a bad name!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 15 2006, 03:57 PM)
GeneSplicer
Speaking of Dentists, the most effective technique was proposed by a buddy of mine several years ago.
He suggested that I reach out and take a firm grip on the doctors privates and say "Now, let's not hurt each other, OK?". This sounded like it would be effective!!!
I’ll remember that when I have to go back to get the sutures take out. I’m thankful that my current dentist is not female or that action may actually lead to more pain.
And I agree. Just as the majority of the xian faith must police themselves and take to task the extremists of their faith, so must the moderate followers of Islam or any religion that seeks to harm others over such differences.
Speaking of Dentists, the most effective technique was proposed by a buddy of mine several years ago.
He suggested that I reach out and take a firm grip on the doctors privates and say "Now, let's not hurt each other, OK?". This sounded like it would be effective!!!
I’ll remember that when I have to go back to get the sutures take out. I’m thankful that my current dentist is not female or that action may actually lead to more pain.
And I agree. Just as the majority of the xian faith must police themselves and take to task the extremists of their faith, so must the moderate followers of Islam or any religion that seeks to harm others over such differences.
Actually it's not just religious extremists. We of the civilised west have our own messes... those that screw anybody to make a buck, those that get our electronic and toxic trash shipped to, that suffer from our economic policies.
And unfortunately, a lot of these people, when they try and demand representation and land reform, say, are labled as terrorist nut jobs.
Yeah, the moderates need to do something to save themselves... that's actually the same message Osama has directed at people like us, moderate westeerners. Do something about our countries and our businesses meddling in others affairs, stop wolfowitz and cheney and Haliburton et al. , or suffer the consequences.
So what the heck are we moderates supposed to do about it? Cleaning house isn't as easy as it sounds.
A good first step though would be to educate oneself. How many people out there realize that Iran had a democratically elected government that was overthrown by the west and replaced with a dictatorship ? Not many it seems. Or that Iraq has been liberated from a backwards tyranical regime by military force and a pro western government instituted before?
After 9/11 a bunch of people asked "why do they hate us so much?" The powers that be quickly jumped in and said that isn't a proper question they are all nutcases.
Well I think it is the most important question. Because it's true the terrorists are nutcases, and greedy for power and generally vile. So there has to be a reason why such people are tolerated even slightly. First step towards cleaning house is learning to recognize the dirt, in our own house as well as in others.
And unfortunately, a lot of these people, when they try and demand representation and land reform, say, are labled as terrorist nut jobs.
Yeah, the moderates need to do something to save themselves... that's actually the same message Osama has directed at people like us, moderate westeerners. Do something about our countries and our businesses meddling in others affairs, stop wolfowitz and cheney and Haliburton et al. , or suffer the consequences.
So what the heck are we moderates supposed to do about it? Cleaning house isn't as easy as it sounds.
A good first step though would be to educate oneself. How many people out there realize that Iran had a democratically elected government that was overthrown by the west and replaced with a dictatorship ? Not many it seems. Or that Iraq has been liberated from a backwards tyranical regime by military force and a pro western government instituted before?
After 9/11 a bunch of people asked "why do they hate us so much?" The powers that be quickly jumped in and said that isn't a proper question they are all nutcases.
Well I think it is the most important question. Because it's true the terrorists are nutcases, and greedy for power and generally vile. So there has to be a reason why such people are tolerated even slightly. First step towards cleaning house is learning to recognize the dirt, in our own house as well as in others.
Grendle,
Your view of Osama, Zakari (sic) and Al Qaeda seems to paint them as revolutionaries, freedom fighter or fighting the “evil corporate giant”. I can safely say that this view is wrong.
You can only judge and organization by its stated goal(s), actions and the comments made by the leaders of said organization. Our existence and our very way of life is something that Zakari has stated is not worthy of existence. His comment about democracy was that it was not of Islam and therefore not to endure, of no importance, etc.
Let us not forget just exactly what this organization did when it came to power. Women were no longer allowed to hold job or seek education, people were killed for crimes against Allah, and worse. In the international press, there was several calling out to bring notice to the violent take over. What did the “international community” do? Nothing.
Terrorists are not misunderstood freedom fighter or rebels akin to the framers of the US Constitution.
Should the US and other countries not interfere? Yes, to a point. Commerce leads to interaction and interference on some levels, but total isolation is not a tenable position.
Your view of Osama, Zakari (sic) and Al Qaeda seems to paint them as revolutionaries, freedom fighter or fighting the “evil corporate giant”. I can safely say that this view is wrong.
You can only judge and organization by its stated goal(s), actions and the comments made by the leaders of said organization. Our existence and our very way of life is something that Zakari has stated is not worthy of existence. His comment about democracy was that it was not of Islam and therefore not to endure, of no importance, etc.
Let us not forget just exactly what this organization did when it came to power. Women were no longer allowed to hold job or seek education, people were killed for crimes against Allah, and worse. In the international press, there was several calling out to bring notice to the violent take over. What did the “international community” do? Nothing.
Terrorists are not misunderstood freedom fighter or rebels akin to the framers of the US Constitution.
Should the US and other countries not interfere? Yes, to a point. Commerce leads to interaction and interference on some levels, but total isolation is not a tenable position.
grendle
I would be the first to agree about the sins of our current government, it seems we too must clean house(and Senate).
Our right wingers have been pulling fast ones on the voting public for the last 40 years or so. They rant about gay marriage and flag burning, the stupid bigots among us vote them in(or they flat out steal the election ala 2000 and 2004), then they pass ruinous tax cuts for the wealthy and other laws which screw the very people who voted them in. The people pay outrageous gas prices while the oil companies make obscene profits. And on and on and on.
I never said it would be easy, just that the alternative will be much worse. The tactics practiced by Osama will, ultimately, kill many more of his people than he can ever kill of us. Yes, he could slip a nuke over the border but within a month of it going off you will be able to strap a slab of bacon on your feet and "ice skate" clear across Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan, in the end we will only be making the rubble bounce. I have served in war and as U.S.Grant said"War is hell", he was correct.
I never said it would be easy, just that the alternative will be much worse. The tactics practiced by Osama will, ultimately, kill many more of his people than he can ever kill of us. Yes, he could slip a nuke over the border but within a month of it going off you will be able to strap a slab of bacon on your feet and "ice skate" clear across Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan, in the end we will only be making the rubble bounce. I have served in war and as U.S.Grant said"War is hell", he was correct.
A good first step though would be to educate oneself. How many people out there realize that Iran had a democratically elected government that was overthrown by the west and replaced with a dictatorship ?
Yes, I know the history of the Shah, but is Iran in any way better under the Mullas?? There is a lot to be said about the seperation of church and state. There is actually hope for Iran, the moderates there are growing tired of being overruled by a bunch of bitter, ignorant old men. We shall see if their current nutjob president pushes them over the edge.
I know this is a complicated question with enough blame to go around but the tactics used will, as I said above, in the end create more bloodshed for Osama than for us. Unfortunately for Islam they have allowed the madmen to take over, be it Palistinians, Jihadists or the Rulers of Syria and the Taliban, and these men are barbarians. These barbarians will be removed from this Earth, if the moderates do it things might get bloody, if we have to do it it will be worse by orders of magnitude.
I know this is a complicated question with enough blame to go around but the tactics used will, as I said above, in the end create more bloodshed for Osama than for us. Unfortunately for Islam they have allowed the madmen to take over, be it Palistinians, Jihadists or the Rulers of Syria and the Taliban, and these men are barbarians. These barbarians will be removed from this Earth, if the moderates do it things might get bloody, if we have to do it it will be worse by orders of magnitude.
Well I think it is the most important question. Because it's true the terrorists are nutcases, and greedy for power and generally vile. So there has to be a reason why such people are tolerated even slightly. First step towards cleaning house is learning to recognize the dirt, in our own house as well as in others.
Part of the problem(by no means all) is the politically incorrect thing to talk about, and that is the religious beliefs of Islam itself. It is tailor made to be misused by these barbarians. Yes, there are many good things about Islam, but the 72 virgins sounds pretty good to the 30 something virgins who have never even talked to a woman due to the strict seperation practiced by that faith. And the unambiguous tenet to kill the infidel doesn't help either. The madrassas teaching vile hatred of everything American as their only subject primes whole generations of cheap smart bombs. And the government coordinated chanting protests for any precieved insult and intimidation of those who might not agree is a perfect illustration of why church state seperation is such a good idea. There is no question about school prayer in Islamic countries, they have it five times a day and woe unto you if you don't at least fake it.
So the answers are not easy but solutions are going to be found, I just hope they can be peaceful.
Grumpy
Yes, I know the history of the Shah, but is Iran in any way better under the Mullas?? There is a lot to be said about the seperation of church and state. There is actually hope for Iran, the moderates there are growing tired of being overruled by a bunch of bitter, ignorant old men. We shall see if their current nutjob president pushes them over the edge.
Iran was doing quite well. They have a highly educated populace. They have a strong overseas population in the west with ties to home that allow outside ideas to enter. Because of the devastating effect ot the war with Iraq they have had to accept both educated women ( such as doctors ) and birth control.
They has a million people take to the streets to support a moderate president that favoured normalizing relations with the west in open defiance of the ayatollahs.
They looked well on their way to a "velvet revoliution"
Then they got labelled a member of the "axis of evil" and the US invaded Iraq ( with the wolfowitz plan well known and various members of the american political right muttering Iran and Syria next. )
This has had the effect of re-energizing the hardliners of the revolutionary council. It is certainly what gave them the shutzpah to blatantly rig the last couple of elections. I hope I'm wrong, but I think that the change from a repressive theocracy to democratic state has been put back sometime, or made it much less likely the process will be relatively peaceful.
You are absolutely right and I apologize for not being more specific. Right now, I am distracted by my swollen jaw and constant pain. You know it’s bad when even Demerol does not take the pain away fully. With that in mind, this response will be short for now.
You are absolutely right and I apologize for not being more specific. Right now, I am distracted by my swollen jaw and constant pain. You know it’s bad when even Demerol does not take the pain away fully. With that in mind, this response will be short for now.
The wahhabi sect of Islam promoted and bankrolled by our Saudi allies is the violent radical root of Osama and his ilk ( originally formulated against turkish imperialism ) The Koran you are most likely to find, especially as a non arab muslim is produced and distibuted thanks to the money of the Saudi Royal family. It is, ironically, an altered version. Many of the more violent and inflammatory quotes one comes across, especially with regard to anti jewish and anti christian sentiment, exist only in this altered version.
I have heard this claim before and find several problems with it. In pursuing the Koran as a foundation of the religion, one will constantly hear how the book must and does remain faithful to the original without deviation. There are also several organization who can and have translated the Koran and the quotes cited as the support of violence exists in all. It Is not just an altered version that stated a support for such violence. The common rebuttal to these translations is that the source is biased or lying or the ultimate excuse that you cannot understand the Koran unless you read it in it’s original and native language.
All of these are excuses to cover up the violent foundation of a religion. Like I stated before, one fact not denied even by moderates is the call for the death of a person who leaves Islam.
Are these those who will abuse this or any religion? Of course, but it should be of great concern as to just how easy this faith lends itself to such violence.
Yes, I’m sure they were, but then again, consider the source.
Yes, I’m sure they were, but then again, consider the source.
( Seriously though, you should look into what was done to "loyalists" that refused to join the cause... people whose worst crime was to be the postmaster at best had their property and land siezed, often had their houses torched, were tarred and feathered - hot tar, it was always disfiguring, usually fatal - and more. There is a reason why close to half a million people left the newly freed United States and moved north. )
I consider Lincoln to be one of the worst things to ever happen to the U.S. and that statement alone has caused more fights than you can imagine. It matters not about the outright crimes and violation of law this man indulged in. The history of the U.S. possessed by many of the citizenry bears no resemblance to the actual events.
I think this just has more to do with a need for heroes. Every country has its national heroes. People just don't want to know the complexities of history. Even schools just teach the romantic versions of history. Heroes, villains, that what people what to hear about. Good vs. Evil. Politics in black and white. Patriotism is a religion. Former presidents are the saints. The founding fathers are the apostles. And though it all we loose the entire purpose.
You rang?
It certainly would be tough to ask the "pertinet" question.
I would be the first to agree about the sins of our current government, it seems we too must clean house(and Senate).
Our right wingers have been pulling fast ones on the voting public for the last 40 years or so. They rant about gay marriage and flag burning, the stupid bigots among us vote them in(or they flat out steal the election ala 2000 and 2004), then they pass ruinous tax cuts for the wealthy and other laws which screw the very people who voted them in. The people pay outrageous gas prices while the oil companies make obscene profits. And on and on and on.
QUOTE
Yeah, the moderates need to do something to save themselves... that's actually the same message Osama has directed at people like us, moderate westeerners. Do something about our countries and our businesses meddling in others affairs, stop wolfowitz and cheney and Haliburton et al. , or suffer the consequences.
I never said it would be easy, just that the alternative will be much worse. The tactics practiced by Osama will, ultimately, kill many more of his people than he can ever kill of us. Yes, he could slip a nuke over the border but within a month of it going off you will be able to strap a slab of bacon on your feet and "ice skate" clear across Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan, in the end we will only be making the rubble bounce. I have served in war and as U.S.Grant said"War is hell", he was correct.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yeah, the moderates need to do something to save themselves... that's actually the same message Osama has directed at people like us, moderate westeerners. Do something about our countries and our businesses meddling in others affairs, stop wolfowitz and cheney and Haliburton et al. , or suffer the consequences. |
I never said it would be easy, just that the alternative will be much worse. The tactics practiced by Osama will, ultimately, kill many more of his people than he can ever kill of us. Yes, he could slip a nuke over the border but within a month of it going off you will be able to strap a slab of bacon on your feet and "ice skate" clear across Iraq, Afganistan and Pakistan, in the end we will only be making the rubble bounce. I have served in war and as U.S.Grant said"War is hell", he was correct.
A good first step though would be to educate oneself. How many people out there realize that Iran had a democratically elected government that was overthrown by the west and replaced with a dictatorship ?
Yes, I know the history of the Shah, but is Iran in any way better under the Mullas?? There is a lot to be said about the seperation of church and state. There is actually hope for Iran, the moderates there are growing tired of being overruled by a bunch of bitter, ignorant old men. We shall see if their current nutjob president pushes them over the edge.
QUOTE
After 9/11 a bunch of people asked "why do they hate us so much?" The powers that be quickly jumped in and said that isn't a proper question they are all nutcases.
I know this is a complicated question with enough blame to go around but the tactics used will, as I said above, in the end create more bloodshed for Osama than for us. Unfortunately for Islam they have allowed the madmen to take over, be it Palistinians, Jihadists or the Rulers of Syria and the Taliban, and these men are barbarians. These barbarians will be removed from this Earth, if the moderates do it things might get bloody, if we have to do it it will be worse by orders of magnitude.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| After 9/11 a bunch of people asked "why do they hate us so much?" The powers that be quickly jumped in and said that isn't a proper question they are all nutcases. |
I know this is a complicated question with enough blame to go around but the tactics used will, as I said above, in the end create more bloodshed for Osama than for us. Unfortunately for Islam they have allowed the madmen to take over, be it Palistinians, Jihadists or the Rulers of Syria and the Taliban, and these men are barbarians. These barbarians will be removed from this Earth, if the moderates do it things might get bloody, if we have to do it it will be worse by orders of magnitude.
Well I think it is the most important question. Because it's true the terrorists are nutcases, and greedy for power and generally vile. So there has to be a reason why such people are tolerated even slightly. First step towards cleaning house is learning to recognize the dirt, in our own house as well as in others.
Part of the problem(by no means all) is the politically incorrect thing to talk about, and that is the religious beliefs of Islam itself. It is tailor made to be misused by these barbarians. Yes, there are many good things about Islam, but the 72 virgins sounds pretty good to the 30 something virgins who have never even talked to a woman due to the strict seperation practiced by that faith. And the unambiguous tenet to kill the infidel doesn't help either. The madrassas teaching vile hatred of everything American as their only subject primes whole generations of cheap smart bombs. And the government coordinated chanting protests for any precieved insult and intimidation of those who might not agree is a perfect illustration of why church state seperation is such a good idea. There is no question about school prayer in Islamic countries, they have it five times a day and woe unto you if you don't at least fake it.
So the answers are not easy but solutions are going to be found, I just hope they can be peaceful.
Grumpy
GeneSplicer,
Al' Queda never came to power anywhere, the Taliban did, though it is true they share the same belief system.
And no, I have no illusions that Osama and his lot are freedom fighters... but it is very easy for them to pose as such. Much like the associations of many christian charities with more conservative/extremist viewpoints in the united states, many terrorist groups are associated with organizations that also do charitable work.
If you look at the history of the region, arab nationalism which was supported by moderate Islam was crushed by the west because it had socialist leanings ( big suprise, poor people support governmetns that promise social programs. )
Supposedly stable states such as Saudi Arabia have repressed the democratic aspirations of their own people while the ruling elite enrich themselves and foriegn business interests at their people's expense. The social democratic forces were driven into exile or wisked away into prisons to never be seen again while the conservative groups were enlisted to aid in fighting those that would want a secular democratic state. Now however, with all other real opposition gone, the only ones that now oppose ( or at least that the locals can see claim to ) the decadent abuse of wealth and political repression are the radical Islamists.
The United States unwavering support of the State of Israel, ( many of the founding fathers of which couold plant bombs abd blow up people with the best of them ) including bailing them out of at least one lost war doesn't help either.
You have a great mass of dis satisfied people, with no other outlets. Whenever they have tried to find a political voice, it has been crushed or co-opted. And these people are then that much more willing to accept someone that claims to speak for them. It's much easier for a terrorist to hide in a world where everyone is angry with america. When everyone is saying "I wish someone would teach them a lesson" it's that much easier to miss the real fanatic that actually intends to do something extreme.
Further there is the direct contribution we make to extremism. The current books used in palestinian schools are horrific, written in the 60's, and basic readers talk about killing israelis. The palestinain authority, with aid from the international community re-wrote the curriculum, removing most of the anti jewish statements and toning down the anti israeli comments to political disagreement. They even accepted some measure of historical blame for the arab israeli wars. The money to print and distribute these books was to be supplied by the united states. The Israeli government decided the books were unacceptable because the did such things as refer to "occupied territories" and "occupation army". Thanks to a good lobbying effort the money was cancelled. So the palestinian schools still have the outdated hate promoting books.
The wahhabi sect of Islam promoted and bankrolled by our Saudi allies is the violent radical root of Osama and his ilk ( originally formulated against turkish imperialism ) The Koran you are most likely to find, especially as a non arab muslim is produced and distibuted thanks to the money of the Saudi Royal family. It is, ironically, an altered version. Many of the more violent and inflammatory quotes one comes across, especially with regard to anti jewish and anti christian sentiment, exist only in this altered version.
Osama and the other radicals are hateful creatures to be sure, but they don't exist in a vacuum. The best, indeed I think only way to defeat such people is to starve them of support. To make them as socially unacceptable to their fellows as KKK members now are in north america. And I don't think we can do that without first understanding why others might think they are not so bad, and we ar not so good.
I don't see Osama and those like him as freedom fighters, but I think it is important to understand why others might.
And BTW, as a non-american who still has a Monarch as head of State let me just say that you freedom fighting revolutionary fathers can also be viewed as a disgruntled rabble that took advatage of world events to betray their country in order to get rich.
( Seriously though, you should look into what was done to "loyalists" that refused to join the cause... people whose worst crime was to be the postmaster at best had their property and land siezed, often had their houses torched, were tarred and feathered - hot tar, it was always disfiguring, usually fatal - and more. There is a reason why close to half a million people left the newly freed United States and moved north. )
One needs to know the enemy if you want to win a war, and one also has to know ones own strengths and weaknesses.
Al' Queda never came to power anywhere, the Taliban did, though it is true they share the same belief system.
And no, I have no illusions that Osama and his lot are freedom fighters... but it is very easy for them to pose as such. Much like the associations of many christian charities with more conservative/extremist viewpoints in the united states, many terrorist groups are associated with organizations that also do charitable work.
If you look at the history of the region, arab nationalism which was supported by moderate Islam was crushed by the west because it had socialist leanings ( big suprise, poor people support governmetns that promise social programs. )
Supposedly stable states such as Saudi Arabia have repressed the democratic aspirations of their own people while the ruling elite enrich themselves and foriegn business interests at their people's expense. The social democratic forces were driven into exile or wisked away into prisons to never be seen again while the conservative groups were enlisted to aid in fighting those that would want a secular democratic state. Now however, with all other real opposition gone, the only ones that now oppose ( or at least that the locals can see claim to ) the decadent abuse of wealth and political repression are the radical Islamists.
The United States unwavering support of the State of Israel, ( many of the founding fathers of which couold plant bombs abd blow up people with the best of them ) including bailing them out of at least one lost war doesn't help either.
You have a great mass of dis satisfied people, with no other outlets. Whenever they have tried to find a political voice, it has been crushed or co-opted. And these people are then that much more willing to accept someone that claims to speak for them. It's much easier for a terrorist to hide in a world where everyone is angry with america. When everyone is saying "I wish someone would teach them a lesson" it's that much easier to miss the real fanatic that actually intends to do something extreme.
Further there is the direct contribution we make to extremism. The current books used in palestinian schools are horrific, written in the 60's, and basic readers talk about killing israelis. The palestinain authority, with aid from the international community re-wrote the curriculum, removing most of the anti jewish statements and toning down the anti israeli comments to political disagreement. They even accepted some measure of historical blame for the arab israeli wars. The money to print and distribute these books was to be supplied by the united states. The Israeli government decided the books were unacceptable because the did such things as refer to "occupied territories" and "occupation army". Thanks to a good lobbying effort the money was cancelled. So the palestinian schools still have the outdated hate promoting books.
The wahhabi sect of Islam promoted and bankrolled by our Saudi allies is the violent radical root of Osama and his ilk ( originally formulated against turkish imperialism ) The Koran you are most likely to find, especially as a non arab muslim is produced and distibuted thanks to the money of the Saudi Royal family. It is, ironically, an altered version. Many of the more violent and inflammatory quotes one comes across, especially with regard to anti jewish and anti christian sentiment, exist only in this altered version.
Osama and the other radicals are hateful creatures to be sure, but they don't exist in a vacuum. The best, indeed I think only way to defeat such people is to starve them of support. To make them as socially unacceptable to their fellows as KKK members now are in north america. And I don't think we can do that without first understanding why others might think they are not so bad, and we ar not so good.
I don't see Osama and those like him as freedom fighters, but I think it is important to understand why others might.
And BTW, as a non-american who still has a Monarch as head of State let me just say that you freedom fighting revolutionary fathers can also be viewed as a disgruntled rabble that took advatage of world events to betray their country in order to get rich.
( Seriously though, you should look into what was done to "loyalists" that refused to join the cause... people whose worst crime was to be the postmaster at best had their property and land siezed, often had their houses torched, were tarred and feathered - hot tar, it was always disfiguring, usually fatal - and more. There is a reason why close to half a million people left the newly freed United States and moved north. )
One needs to know the enemy if you want to win a war, and one also has to know ones own strengths and weaknesses.
QUOTE (Grumpy+Feb 15 2006, 08:15 PM)
QUOTE
A good first step though would be to educate oneself. How many people out there realize that Iran had a democratically elected government that was overthrown by the west and replaced with a dictatorship ?
Yes, I know the history of the Shah, but is Iran in any way better under the Mullas?? There is a lot to be said about the seperation of church and state. There is actually hope for Iran, the moderates there are growing tired of being overruled by a bunch of bitter, ignorant old men. We shall see if their current nutjob president pushes them over the edge.
Iran was doing quite well. They have a highly educated populace. They have a strong overseas population in the west with ties to home that allow outside ideas to enter. Because of the devastating effect ot the war with Iraq they have had to accept both educated women ( such as doctors ) and birth control.
They has a million people take to the streets to support a moderate president that favoured normalizing relations with the west in open defiance of the ayatollahs.
They looked well on their way to a "velvet revoliution"
Then they got labelled a member of the "axis of evil" and the US invaded Iraq ( with the wolfowitz plan well known and various members of the american political right muttering Iran and Syria next. )
This has had the effect of re-energizing the hardliners of the revolutionary council. It is certainly what gave them the shutzpah to blatantly rig the last couple of elections. I hope I'm wrong, but I think that the change from a repressive theocracy to democratic state has been put back sometime, or made it much less likely the process will be relatively peaceful.
QUOTE
Al' Queda never came to power anywhere, the Taliban did, though it is true they share the same belief system.
You are absolutely right and I apologize for not being more specific. Right now, I am distracted by my swollen jaw and constant pain. You know it’s bad when even Demerol does not take the pain away fully. With that in mind, this response will be short for now.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Al' Queda never came to power anywhere, the Taliban did, though it is true they share the same belief system. |
You are absolutely right and I apologize for not being more specific. Right now, I am distracted by my swollen jaw and constant pain. You know it’s bad when even Demerol does not take the pain away fully. With that in mind, this response will be short for now.
The wahhabi sect of Islam promoted and bankrolled by our Saudi allies is the violent radical root of Osama and his ilk ( originally formulated against turkish imperialism ) The Koran you are most likely to find, especially as a non arab muslim is produced and distibuted thanks to the money of the Saudi Royal family. It is, ironically, an altered version. Many of the more violent and inflammatory quotes one comes across, especially with regard to anti jewish and anti christian sentiment, exist only in this altered version.
I have heard this claim before and find several problems with it. In pursuing the Koran as a foundation of the religion, one will constantly hear how the book must and does remain faithful to the original without deviation. There are also several organization who can and have translated the Koran and the quotes cited as the support of violence exists in all. It Is not just an altered version that stated a support for such violence. The common rebuttal to these translations is that the source is biased or lying or the ultimate excuse that you cannot understand the Koran unless you read it in it’s original and native language.
All of these are excuses to cover up the violent foundation of a religion. Like I stated before, one fact not denied even by moderates is the call for the death of a person who leaves Islam.
Are these those who will abuse this or any religion? Of course, but it should be of great concern as to just how easy this faith lends itself to such violence.
QUOTE
And BTW, as a non-american who still has a Monarch as head of State let me just say that you freedom fighting revolutionary fathers can also be viewed as a disgruntled rabble that took advatage of world events to betray their country in order to get rich.
Yes, I’m sure they were, but then again, consider the source.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And BTW, as a non-american who still has a Monarch as head of State let me just say that you freedom fighting revolutionary fathers can also be viewed as a disgruntled rabble that took advatage of world events to betray their country in order to get rich. |
Yes, I’m sure they were, but then again, consider the source.
( Seriously though, you should look into what was done to "loyalists" that refused to join the cause... people whose worst crime was to be the postmaster at best had their property and land siezed, often had their houses torched, were tarred and feathered - hot tar, it was always disfiguring, usually fatal - and more. There is a reason why close to half a million people left the newly freed United States and moved north. )
I consider Lincoln to be one of the worst things to ever happen to the U.S. and that statement alone has caused more fights than you can imagine. It matters not about the outright crimes and violation of law this man indulged in. The history of the U.S. possessed by many of the citizenry bears no resemblance to the actual events.
Sorry, double posted for some reason....
QUOTE
I consider Lincoln to be one of the worst things to ever happen to the U.S. and that statement alone has caused more fights than you can imagine. It matters not about the outright crimes and violation of law this man indulged in. The history of the U.S. possessed by many of the citizenry bears no resemblance to the actual events.
I think this just has more to do with a need for heroes. Every country has its national heroes. People just don't want to know the complexities of history. Even schools just teach the romantic versions of history. Heroes, villains, that what people what to hear about. Good vs. Evil. Politics in black and white. Patriotism is a religion. Former presidents are the saints. The founding fathers are the apostles. And though it all we loose the entire purpose.
Maybe you can do a better job of finding a single valid prophesy that the Bible made that came true.
And it said the Earth was a Sphere?
Big Whoop not only was that known but it had been measured.
And it said the Earth was a Sphere?
Big Whoop not only was that known but it had been measured.
I always thought it was an interesting thing, that from adam, atom ... all men where created. I also find it an interesting thing that when we "graph" reality it is done on a cross. I also find it interesting that it is because of the sun, we have life.
firmament:
1. Fixed foundation; established basis. [Obs.]
Custom is the . . . firmament of the law. --Jer. Taylor.
2. The region of the air; the sky or heavens.
Note: In Scripture, the word denotes an expanse, a wide extent; the great arch or expanse over out heads, in which are placed the atmosphere and the clouds, and in which the stars appear to be placed, and are really seen.
3. (Old Astron.) The orb of the fixed stars; the most remote of the celestial spheres.
Spheres strike me the most, and it sounds like the "universe" is being described as fluid. Now, I didn't come to believe that the universe was fluid from the bible. I came to that thought through my own rationale. I just find it strange that the two things that fascinate me the most about the universe ... the shape one can "see" everywhere ... a sphere, and the medium appears to be fluid. Water, it is the base of almost every fluid there is, and it seems rather simple ... but we cannot synthesize it. "We can make it" ... rather ironic how ... hydrogen fuel cells produce water what is the sun?
I don't know, I'm not afraid of a mystery, I like them. What scares me is people that think they know everything.
QUOTE
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was[a] on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven
3 Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good; and God divided the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
6 Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” 7 Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven
firmament:
1. Fixed foundation; established basis. [Obs.]
Custom is the . . . firmament of the law. --Jer. Taylor.
2. The region of the air; the sky or heavens.
Note: In Scripture, the word denotes an expanse, a wide extent; the great arch or expanse over out heads, in which are placed the atmosphere and the clouds, and in which the stars appear to be placed, and are really seen.
3. (Old Astron.) The orb of the fixed stars; the most remote of the celestial spheres.
Spheres strike me the most, and it sounds like the "universe" is being described as fluid. Now, I didn't come to believe that the universe was fluid from the bible. I came to that thought through my own rationale. I just find it strange that the two things that fascinate me the most about the universe ... the shape one can "see" everywhere ... a sphere, and the medium appears to be fluid. Water, it is the base of almost every fluid there is, and it seems rather simple ... but we cannot synthesize it. "We can make it" ... rather ironic how ... hydrogen fuel cells produce water what is the sun?
I don't know, I'm not afraid of a mystery, I like them. What scares me is people that think they know everything.
QUOTE (Meem+)
What scares me is people that think they know everything.
Meem: Welcome to "Horrorfest"...
Meem: Welcome to "Horrorfest"...
Why is it that people with answers think the people with questions are the ones who think they know everything?
QUOTE (Feb+8, 2006)
Survival of ourselves is followed closely by survival of our family. Evolution really does explain that ...
Any worldview seeks to rule alone, and must seek that. It must believe in its sole right, which is the foundation of its effectiveness. In battling other worldviews, it must maintain its good conscience. If it loses that, it loses its self-confidence, the feeling of superiority, and thereby its power over people. Where each can do what he wants, there is no whole. Eras without unity lack compelling power. Only where a will to life dominates, only where all strengths are moving in the same direction, does greatness follow.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/schul01.htm
Any worldview seeks to rule alone, and must seek that. It must believe in its sole right, which is the foundation of its effectiveness. In battling other worldviews, it must maintain its good conscience. If it loses that, it loses its self-confidence, the feeling of superiority, and thereby its power over people. Where each can do what he wants, there is no whole. Eras without unity lack compelling power. Only where a will to life dominates, only where all strengths are moving in the same direction, does greatness follow.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/schul01.htm
I don't know what happened to Wrozka's two posts since he joined this month. I only saw the one for this thread. At the moment Google might have them both cached. If not, I think I will just thank him\her for bringing up this thread to a current status. The thread seems coevality with what is going on now in Iran, a known theocracy of a lessening good conscience. The languange has been fairly civilized. The premise seems stupid to me, however. The Gnostics lost because the Bible is unclear?
Pffft...okay, on second thought - the 325AD event is of turning importance on how flawed liturgical calendars came to be!!
MrB.
For more----------> Showtopic= 25706 — The Bible with or without the Apocrypha{over tradition @ Nice} and the more sure word of prophecy... even after the thousand years.
Revelation 20:4-8a
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four
(KJV)
Pffft...okay, on second thought - the 325AD event is of turning importance on how flawed liturgical calendars came to be!!
MrB.
For more----------> Showtopic= 25706 — The Bible with or without the Apocrypha{over tradition @ Nice} and the more sure word of prophecy... even after the thousand years.
Revelation 20:4-8a
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four
(KJV)
QUOTE (buttershug+Jun 9 2009, 09:21 AM)
Why is it that people with answers think the people with questions are the ones who think they know everything?
Maybe it's because the questions don't fit their answers.
Maybe it's because the questions don't fit their answers.
No, it should be known that it is tougher to ask the pertinet question than to find an answer. Who's our enemy, God or Satan the fallen angel?
QUOTE
...or Satan the fallen angel?
You rang?
MisterBelfry
Our real enemy is the stupidity of man that leads him to think that either exists in reality, or that either is responsible for the behavior that is man's responsibility alone. The devil made me do it is a cop out for the evil in man himself.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Who's our enemy, God or Satan the fallen angel?
Our real enemy is the stupidity of man that leads him to think that either exists in reality, or that either is responsible for the behavior that is man's responsibility alone. The devil made me do it is a cop out for the evil in man himself.
Grumpy
QUOTE
No, it should be known that it is tougher to ask the pertinet question than to find an answer.
It certainly would be tough to ask the "pertinet" question.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.