THE WORD OF CHRIST
The Word Of Christ
Surprisingly indistinguishable from one’s personal opinion, actually.
(Becky Fisher of the film Jesus Camp)
Picture by: dunno source. Caption by: dunno source via Poster Builder
You May Like:
Show Only: Democrats | Republicans | Media | Military
« Previous invisible keyboard | Caution Next »
Lol News has hit a new low…
Or a new high. I’m kinda pissed that the best thing to come out of the BC era has been so hugely ignored. How those twits that followed him around manage to get more press then he does is still beyond me.
Shut up. Jesus Camp opened my eyes to the blasphemy upon human rights that is religion.
People like her need to be locked up and put away for a very long time for crimes against humanity.
She’d say the same about you…
Not crimes against humanity… criminal stupidity. Criminal stupidity so egregious that every breath she takes is a felony, and every word she utters is a capital offense.
It’s purely coincidental, but for some reason I’m reminded of the Little House on the Prairie episode where Nellie Oleson read her school essay, “Why Jesus Loves Me More Than Most.”
I thought that was Nancy Olsen?
I totally agree with you. Her camp practically brainwashes kids and does NOT let them think for themselves. Whatever she says, goes. Total cult leader…. it makes me so angry.
You should watch ‘Jesus Camp’. It’s a documentary about the Evangelical religion that she represents and the camp she runs. Watch that, then form an opinion. (Btw, she’s pretty messed up.)
So you accept that she is speaking for the supposed Christ?
Just the opposite.
Hey moses did, who is to say that she can’t. Just because he ideas are controversial? so was what moses said during his time and yet now he is viewed as a profit by all christians. Dont worry tho, i’m not arguing for her, im actually arguing that religion is a bunch of bull
Good argument. Bad grammar. I totally agree with you, but take more time to proofread
Have you SEEN the film? It’s disgusting. This wretched harpy has small children weeping in shame for their sins. Tell me, what vile sins has an 8-year-old committed that are worthy of such self-loathing? She yells at them for the horrible sin of having normal lives, for having friends without constantly trying to shove Jesus down their throats. A little boy who confesses to struggling with occasional doubt is looked upon with abject horror. A little girl says that it’s tough sometimes to remember that her dancing should be solely to glorify god and never “for the flesh” – who is the pervert who used a phrase with such sexual undertones to describe a little child’s dancing? Go watch this horrific film (or at least the clips available on YouTube) before you get all prissy about it.
It truly is vile.. how can anyone justify thrusting that kind of hefty guilt on such a young child?
Jake I could not have said it better myself.
I agree, Jake. Thank you.
Plus, apparently, these people are destroying the First Amendment to the US by trying to force evangelical Christianity down other people’s throats.
The First Amendment only applies to the actions of Congress, actually.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
Thus, the First Amendment has no bearing on what individuals, cities, states, and organizations do. The 500-and-change legislators on the Hill cannot legally make you join or leave any faith.
Actually an 8 year old is almost sinless, because he/she just barely reached the age of accountability.
Disgusting indeed, but having been raised in the midwest, my experience is that she’s pretty darn mainstream. What she’s doing is tried and true and has been the norm for much of America for a very long time. I’m 50 years old and was subjected to the same abuses she lays out at Jesus Camp in my day to day life as a child and my parents weren’t even religious. You got this from many adults – Teachers, coaches, other kids parents, it was the satus quo. She is the “normal” one based on the numbers, not us. I’m shocked that people don’t know this, but encouraged that those who don’t know that most of their country has been like this for decades are now finding out!
“most of their country” … you said having been raised in the midwest at the beginning of your post. maybe that’s just your personal life, and not everyone has that experiment? you need numbers and citations to say that this is “average”.
I’m disturbed by some of the content as well. As a parent of 5 children, I must state the importance of making sure your children are receiving the proper spiritual nurturing necessary, just like we need to feed them the proper nutrition for their bodies. On another note, we also need to show our children how to pray for others and themselves NOW because things are not getting any better for them in schools. My daughter was shunned in school (a 7 year old) for saying how much she loves Jesus and how Jesus is God. She was shunned to the point that when I was going to read the bible to the kids during the holidays, she violently shook her head and placed her hands on her ears saying she didn’t want to hear about Jesus. I was totally shocked and had to have a one on one conversation with the teacher over the phone about my daughter’s reaction and that she needs to cautiously speak with her that it’s ok for her to believe in God or Jesus, just like I told her that some people don’t want to hear about it. “No one should fear saying Jesus or God in school”, I told her. We settled the matter, but as you see kids are impressionable on both sides of the spectrum…those who want to suppress their freedom of speech about the love they have for Jesus and those who are like wolves in sheep clothing misleading our children.
Your post made me feel sorry for your indoctrinated children- I hope they become rational atheists just to spite you.
Why do you think your daughter felt compelled to talk about how much she loved Jesus!? Because Parents like you drive “the word of the Lord” down their children’s throats from a young age- telling children too you to question that Jesus watches them and loves them. In my day-to-day life I am surounded by rational people who cannot explain why they are Christian, simple answer: they were cursed (like me) with active Christian parents. However while I grew up to question the religion I was forced to believe, they never fealt the need- wrapped up their blanket of security- never needing to step out-side the box. Is this how you want your kids to grow up?
“It’s ok for her to believe in God or Jesus, just like I told her that some people don’t want to hear about it.”
So here we have someone teaching their children to understand other’s stances without being ashamed of their own…And that’s not enough for you? Jings…
Yes but she’s teaching her children about Christianity as the defualt state- she’s teaching them that “some people” don’t want to hear about Jesus. I think you misunderstand the power of that phrase.
Please remember that I too was eductated by Christian parents
I think you read too much into “some people.” It’s a very common, ordinary phrase.
“Some people” don’t believe in Jesus.
“Some people” don’t believe in atheism.
If you think that one of these sentences is absolutely fine and the other isn’t, you may have double standards.
If you are determined to find something wrong with a post, you will. She did not call atheists “fools” or “infidels” or “scum.” She called them people and taught her daughter that everyone has a different viewpoint.
I remember that you were educated by Christian parents and it sounds to me as though you are allowing that experience to unfairly colour your view of EJ.
And having Christianity as the default state? Well, what’s so wrong with that? If you have a family you can teach your child that atheism is the default state. As a Christian, I will find that wrong but will respect that because it is your family and your children.
It’s a little late, but well put, AC.
Agreed…It’s impossible to have a loving relationship with your kids and keep all your views to yourself. We all, as good parents, try to teach them the best we know how.
I seriously want her to look upon her own sins before she brings other people’s supposed wrongdoings into light. I hate people like this. What a horrid woman.
I enjoyed a quote from a recent-ish movie, The Island: (probably not exact word for word, but mostly)
“You know when you really want something, and you wish for it really hard? God’s the guy that ignores you.”
But that’s just a bit of luls.
This woman isn’t luls really. She’s obviously insane and, worryingly, there are more like her. What kind of God is worth living your life in such a way? Don’t do ANYTHING enjoyable (except praising God) because otherwise you go to hell!
Seriously. If all these insane Christians are going to be in heaven and I’m going to Hell, I’ll go with that. Seems like I’ll have the company of NORMAL people.
omg did you just call US insane? you guys are the insane ones.
I’d like to take that topic up with you at length. Please e-mail anonymous (.) wintershadow@googlemail (.) com
Why are you so intent upon debating with an 11-year-old?
toria, you just don’t get it. sin is blocking you heart. look at the world, how could murders and sex offenders be normal? i may have a short temper, but i don’t want anyone to go to hell. we are not insane. someday you will realize that. all those “normal people” won’t matter in hell. mark my words, they won’t. do you know what hell is? lava. fire. it is hotter than the sun and it will never and i mean never end. in heaven there are streets of gold. water that makes you never be thirsty again, same for the food. all of us , the people you mock, will have mansions of gold, while non-Christians will be burning.when Jesus says “depart from me evil doer, i never knew you.” that will be when you realize that your life was a lie. that you were and are wrong. that all of us “insane” people were right.
look up dr. vick young.
yes, i’m sure that’s the case. if you really think this, you need to think for yourself a bit. if non-Christians are burning, being tortured in hideous ways, etc, how is your god loving and forgiving, if he can condemn his own CHILDREN who weren’t strong enough to believe and made mistakes to eternal torture? how could you trust ANYthing that could do that to give you the promises you’ve stated? so you stated that sex offenders and murderers are not normal. i agree. you then state “all those ‘normal people’ won’t matter in hell”- you THEN proceed to state “non-Christians will be burning” so, you’re saying that everyone who isn’t christian is a murderer, sex offender, etc? if you think the rest of the world is insane, you need to take a logical, reasonable and thoughtful look at your life and your beliefs. you need to think in a STRAIGHT LINE, and admit there are holes you can’t cover up in any religion.
first off you completely misunderstood me. i didn’t say that ALL non-Christians are murderers or sex offenders. i just meant that is what a lot of the world seems to be. God doesn’t want anyone to go to hell. you can’t enter heaven unless your sins have been forgiven. and you are wrong about the holes in religion. i admit that we can’t understand everything. but Christianity is all true and all makes sense. we don’t know everything. i don’t know much anyway cause i’m only 11 anyway. and the line i think in is straight. and Christianity isn’t just religion, it’s faith.
Maybe you should finish grade five before you continue this line of straight thinking.
You’ll probably end up going atheist to spite your evangelical parents.
not likely. i’m already saved. and i will never deny God, even if there’s a gun in my face.
Would you deny god if he turned out to be whatever you would find totally depraved?
Never mind that that will never happen (whichever of us is right). Just make-believe, for a second.
You die, you go to the gates or what-have-you, and there is god, ready to forgive your sins. And you cannot stomach him, find him utterly despicable and repugnant.
Would you deny him then, or would you be wiling to repent your sins to someone visibly wallowing in the worst things you can imagine?
I’m not trying to put down faith or criticize religion. I just want to understand it, and what it’s followers believe.
Christianity as a religion is f*cking full of motherf*cking holes! Half of it doesn’t even make f*cking sense when applied to science (which we KNOW to be true) However I can understand your ignorance considering your age- please learn more about your own religion and then e-mail me so we can get this whole thing settled out.
Just some questions here.
How do you know that science is true?
Is it because that’s what your teachers have taught you?
Have you ever thought that maybe there are things that we can’t perceive? After all theoretical physics points to things that are untestable all the time.
Now if there are things that cannot be perceived how would one test them with the scientific method?
What I’m saying here is that maybe you should question what you so firmly accept as truth. I do. If I did not question my faith I would not really be a believer. I would be a mindless tool for whoever wished to guide me. Be it right wing politicians or corrupt and hateful false preachers.
Being that Midge is apparently some sort of troll that changes names, and as such unreliable for debate, I’ll field some of these questions.
No legitimate scientist will tell you anything is true, only that it is probable. To hold scientific findings (and science in general) as absolute truth is a fallacy; the nature of science is that if findings turn out to be incorrect, they can be corrected (as opposed to many religions, where things are considered absolute).
Both sides require an amount of faith to believe in. The difference, though, is that where religion offers truths based without evidence aside from “what they say/wrote”, science strives to find evidence for what it claims is real, and is probable. It starts with a theory, and instead of instantly claiming it to be the answer (“God did it”), methodically tests it to see if it’s correct. The former side is, by nature, one that refuses to be contradicted because then it loses its basis, where the latter welcomes it.
As for things untestable by scientific method, well, that’s what science is striving towards: being able to explain the nature of the universe, or at least planet earth, through scientific method. It’s gradual, and it takes a long time, and scientists know that. But that is why I have faith in science. Nobody claims to have all the answers, but only that they are seeking them, and that is something I can get behind.
I am glad to hear that you question what you accept as truth (and very glad that you brought up the nature of the unperceived
), because it is open-minded people like you that aid science in finding answers and open the minds of others to what is possible, even if the end really does turn out to be “God did it”.
I said “nature” way too many times. It’s one of those days…
Great post Veritas.
Thanks, Cow. I’m not even a science major… just a happy observer.
and because God is the way, the truth, and the light.
Do you know what hell actually is? Gehenna, an ancient garbage dump in Israel invoked in curses by Israelites against other Israelites.
Do you know where your image of hell comes from? An allegorical poem, written in the 14th century by an Italian man named Dante.
Look up the origins of what you spout off as truth before you claim it to be as such.
A description of Hell exists in the Bible as well in the Book of Revelations. It is described as “a lake that burns with fire and sulfur.” The images of Hell as a pit of fire or lake of fire are Biblical, they didn’t come from Dante, although his description of Hell is more commonly known, they aren’t far from the Bible.
Im not saying the Bible is necessarily correct, however, the beliefs expressed here are Biblical in origin, not just a commonly held misconception, as many aspects of Christianity are.
See “Gehenna” as written above. That is where the image in the Bible comes from.
Modern interpretation of Hell is far and away more than just a lake of fire, and so that is why I cited Dante.
I’m just wondering. How do you know these things “NObama”? Did your bible tell you so? And even then, why is the bible “God’s word”? You do realize that it was written by HUMAN BEINGS right? You really have no proof for your “Hell is fire. Heaven has streets of gold” sentiment. And don’t tell me that you just go “by faith” because I can go “by faith” that, the minute I walk into a dark alley, my imaginary friend will protect me from the muggers hiding around the corner, when in reality, they’ll just beat me down and steal my wallet, leaving me for dead.
2 timothy 1-4 states that Christians will go through troubled times. that is like what you said. i grew up in a trailer park and my life was trashy. that was a test of faith. (my dad says like a goldsmith gets through gold through fire, and that’s how God gets pure souls.) now i’m in a real house with a real life that i always wanted. i’m 11 now. God isn’t an “imaginary friend” yes i did get this from my Bible, and how do you have proof that it isn’t true? you can’t. and i do go by faith. i walk in faith, because i know the future is brighter. The Bible was not written by human, only human hands. God is the true author. and my opinion about the dark alley thing, who in their right mind would walk into a dark alley without a baseball bat anyway!?!? i sure as heck wouldn’t.
oh and one more thing, The Bible says that many people won’t believe in Jesus Christ
Did you say you were 11 years old?
yup.
People like you realy make me want to kill things and burn down churches- I’m going to go and get my lighter.
Now if that was a joke, it would be ok, except someone actually DID torch the church in Wasilla once Palin got back there. See, it’s not funny when you do more than joke about it. Duh.
have fun. i’m going to heaven when i die. kill me then. i don’t care.
Someone make a note of this moron’s post.
The level of your indoctrination is sickening. Children shouldn’t be brainwashed into believing something, you shouldn’t be introduced to religion before you’re old enough to make your own decision. As it is your parents are probably evangelical maniacs who brainwashed you from the moment you were born. Sad, really.
Oh, and if you’re 11, you didn’t ‘grow up’ in a trailer park. You spent some of your life there, is all, and then your parents made more money or whatever. You’re still growing up, and it looks like you have quite a long way to go.
Ummmm, we have a little thing called “avatars” here. That’s that little geometrical shape next to your name. See, unless you are too stupid to figure out how to put another email address in the box then you can change your name all you want to and we still know it’s you. So Midge/Tony/Whatever, go pimp your email and trollish comments elsewhere.
If the Bible was written with the finger of God, and sent down in a flash of lightning I bet fewer people would read it, claiming it was fake. No, it was God speaking THROUGh men, telling exactly what to write so that it really does correlate with everything else the Book says, even though it was written by multiple authors. There were eyewitness accounts and testimonies for many of the books. Of all the people who saw Jesus, only a few wrote books about Him, why is that, hm?
As for what Heaven or Hell appears to be, there have been testimonies of visions about it, few exact descriptions. But God describes these few details such as the lake of fire, so on and so forth.
“Of all the people who saw Jesus, only a few wrote books about Him, why is that, hm?”
Actually, quite a lot of people wrote about him objectively. Even then, though, that’s like saying “of all the people in the world play music, why did only Beethoven write ‘Ode to Joy’? The notes were all there, they just needed someone to organize them.” The creative spirit does not reside in everyone, and in those it does, they do not all make the same things. It makes sense that in a time when few were literate and fewer still could write allegorically that only a few of those few would write the Bible.
As for the Hell described in the Bible, it’s described as a lake of fire because there was an actual “lake of fire” in ancient Israel. People write of what they know – an ancient Israelite would no doubt use such a place as a comparison to punishment, especially when it is already commonly invoked in oral curses.
Wow, your God is an incredibly evil being.
Who cares if you think that? Frankly, I prefer people who acknowledge that God might indeed be real – they just don’t LIKE Him very much. Or they maybe even hate him.
Now where were YOU exactly, when he set the mountains in place and caused the hawk to soar? Where were you when he filled the oceans and flung the stars to the far reaches of space exactly? I always get a kick out of people thinking they are the arbiters of what God should be and shouldn’t be. To be honest, it makes me laugh even though it probably shouldn’t. It’s just so bizarrely absurd.
The same people that care about his opinion that God is incredibly evil are probably the same ones that care about what kind of people you prefer: nobody.
That was a hell of a long way to go for an insult. Ended up being pretty lame.
Try harder.
It wasn’t an insult. I only figured that if you realized you’re vehemently arguing over silly things on an internet comment board and telling people what -you- prefer, you’d realize what a waste of time it is. This could be said about many people, but you in particular seem to expend quite a lot of effort. I’d imagine that with all your condescension, you’re frowning a lot, and we all know how that saying goes.
I suppose I should have figured you’d take any truth aimed in your direction as insult and attack, though, so that’s “my bad”.
So it wasn’t silly when they were arguing it, only when I offered my opinion. Nice. And that was another long way to go that ended up lame. When in doubt always say “Hey, I’m just trying to HELP you and be NICE to you and you take it as an insult.” LOL
You do know this is words on a screen, right?
It was silly when you decided to, specifically, talk about what kind of people you prefer. Where does that come into legitimate debate?
I do know it’s words on a screen. I also know that unless someone is typically defensive, they don’t get offended very easily.
Why did that make it silly? There should, for clarity, be a “though” between “Who cares what you think” and “I prefer”, however. It would read much more clearly. Because the person I was addressing was of the type I prefer – those who acknowledge God might be real, they just hate Him. That’s no more silly than anything else on this thread, or on this site, or on any humor site or any lol in existence. It just “is.” You’re being silly nitpicking, actually.
Well, when you’re debating ideas, you should try to avoid talking about personal preferences, because it diminishes the strength of your argument. It’s better to say, “I agree, and here’s why” and then obviously lead into the points. It gives more force and prevents the reader from viewing it as an individual opinion and more as a solid concept, if that makes sense.
I suppose I am being silly nitpicking, though, because not everyone treats these sorts of discussions as debates. I thought a bit of constructive criticism may help.
You’d come across a lot better if you’d just acknowledge the obvious – you went too far for an insult and it came off lame, now you’re spinning. And spinning it as “just trying to help” – but I guess you learned that from others here – hint: it doesn’t work.
Oh well, that means he can get away with the very un-Godlike qualities he exhibits in the Bible – arrogance, spite, pettiness, insecurity, rage, jealousy…
My God is an incredibly evil being? Maybe you should take just a slight look at the things he promotes, which the world could use more of. :/
Well so is your god. You’re Athiest and “there is no god”? Human nature is an incredibly evil being.
The problem with your argument is that it becomes very hard to see what your God promotes when so many claim to speak for him.
Right off the bat, you have the three Abrahamic religions – Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. All three worship the same root God, but all three have differing ideas about what He stands for. Beyond that there are the hundreds of different sects of all the religions, saying some of those things are right, but some are different.
Religions are judged by the words and actions of their followers. When nobody can make up their mind about what God is really saying and there are three holy books that contradict each other. Which group is promoting the “right” message, and who are you to say so?
A-theists- do not worship humans as gods. They recognize humans as human. My own personal view as an agnostic is that humans are not “evil” until something makes them that way (nurture, not nature), and in most cases this is reversible with the right treatment or rehabilitation (i.e., not just throwing people into prisons, but actually teaching them to be productive members of society; see Japan’s rehabilitation system). Many would agree with me, I’m sure. Humans can be incredibly evil AND incredibly good, and I think the charity performed by religious groups is a perfect example of that. It’s humans being human.
Dude, you’re friggin” nuts! What possible proof do you hold that speaks of these things? Enjoy your “mansions of gold” psycho.
A rather literal interpretation of Hell. Honestly if it were just fire and lava eventually you’d get used to it. The truth is no one really knows what hell is, the only thing we know is that it is a state of being completely detached from God. No goodness no beauty no peace no joy. Another interesting view of hell is the purgatory that CS Lewis writes about in The Great Divorce. Though fiction is portrays a place where people drift ever further apart and never feel truly comfortable. Read the book to get a better Idea. I choose to be a Christian not because I’m afraid of hell, though I am a bit I guess, but rather because the Son of God, God Incarnate, chose to die so that I could be closer to God and hear his voice. As far as sin is concerned I try not to. Not because I’m told that sinning is bad, but rather because Christ took upon himself all the sin that ever was and ever will be. If I can avoid heaping anymore pain on someone who would die for me I will.
Hm, 11 year old eh. Well. Hm. I will pray that your faith will develop as mine did. I used to make judgmental statements too. But remember that the scripture says “Judge not lest ye be judged.” In my prayers Nobama.
@ Talisman
Aye, an unfortunate fact that many Christians are unaware of… Fire and Brimstone, Lake of Fire hell comes from two sources: a book written by a man named Dante Alighieri, and the curse “I hope you burn in hell”; this comes from an ancient Jewish curse invoking the fires of Gehenna (the Valley of Hinnom), a garbage dump in ancient Israel that was said to burn so brightly it turned the skies red at night. One of the most important aspects of death to an ancient Israelite was a proper burial. To be burned with the garbage was an unbelievable nightmare, and so its imagery was used often to scare people into good behavior.
Is the CS Lewis interpretation you speak of the one where you live in London, and everyday is rainy? And everyday, a plane leaves for heaven, but you never go…
OH sure. God doesnt want to save 50% of the worlds population right. Non-Chistains will be saved If the believe in GOD THE FATHER.
if yous read your silly hooman bible
you god guy very mean in most of it, murdering babies and causing plagues
what make you hoomans thinks he wants to even save 10% of you%
jake, anyone under the age of accountability (age of knowing right from wrong) which is said to be 12, is not acountable for sin, because they didn’t know it was wrong. and for future reference, we are ALL sinners. look up Dr. Vick Young. he may be able to answer any questions anyone may have. and which film? Passion of Christ? ya good movie.
no, the film Jesus Camp. he states it. read the posts above before you post.
Vick Young seams to be your roll model mate. Every “christian” seams to have a roll model. Maybe you should broaden your horizons my friend. <.<
I really do wonder what you think of all of those television evangelists out there.
*role model
first of all he is my preacher not my role model. you said roll model and it is supposed to be role model. i am a Christian. Oh and I’m 11 so what the heck is an evangelist? anyway, my role model is God. there are views of Vick Young that not even i agree with. but this is all true not an opinion. if you don’t believe now, it will come back to bite you in the but later.
oh and i’m the same nobama as earlier
oh and by the way, you misunderstood the “of the flesh” thing. it means don’t dance to glorify yourself, but dance to glorify God. the parable’s might have got ya too.
I STRIKE THEE DOWN FOR FREEDOM OF SPEECH! And this lady is part of a cult, even other Christians don’t accept her as being part of Christianity. Lighten up. It’s just a picture.
Christianity is a cult as well, you know.
So are Judaism, Buddhism, Scientology, Hinduism, Islam, and I can’t think of any other religion.
You would be hard pressed to actually prove that every religion is a cult. Considering you can leave some religions, like Christianity.
Like I said, Christianity is most certainly a cult. Cult is simply defined as any group following a certain belief structure, and usually with some sort of initiation or semblance of membership. The military is a cult, one I am a proud member of. It’s only through modern syntax that we have assigned a negative meaning to the word “cult,” due to the nature with which the media portrays particularly nutso cults. But in its base definition, cult isn’t a bad thing at all, and calling religion a cult is simply a matter of defining how they operate (indoctrination, for example), not of defining their intentions.
What… cogent analysis of the word ‘cult.’ The bit about the military, and being a proud member, um, brilliant?! I love it when people take the argument to a different level like that. The heart of PK, you has it.
Just by your word choice, I would like to let you know that I am now a fan of yours. Well put, by the both of you.
Well put, in that sense I would agree totally. Unfortunately I have been a victim of the media on the meaning of the word “cult”. In that sense though any following is then a cult? So long as it has some means of initiation?
Pretty much, I’d agree with that assessment. Now, you COULD get into the nitty gritty about numbers and structure, and all that jazz. My collegiate social psychology class went into great depth about the essentials for a cult to really form, things like the charismatic leader, the isolation, the process of getting almost brand new recruits to start recruiting as well (making them teach what they’ve learned helps them form a deeper bond with the teachings), that sort of stuff. All of which, by the way, the military has/does.
So, you could say that a simple “following” isn’t necessarily a cult, such as 5 year olds who follow a 6 year old simply because he’s the biggest. But were the 6 year old to make a clubhouse where he and his followers spent all their time and recruited other 5 year olds to join the group, then you could be getting closer… 
Well done.
Agree one hundred percent. The isolation is but an aspect that comes as a result, the leader usually isolates his group at times, but are they not part of the group even when they are in public? That is just me being a nit pick so never mind that.
I am a proud christian, and I find this woman terrible.
Good statement, not necessarily the right place?
Or, as we say on PK: “Nesting Fail”
Same thing in fail blog, I was actually asking him how he felt on the subject.
Oh. Oops. My bad.
Meh its all fine, I was a bit ambiguous in my intentions anyways.
Um… isn’t pride a sin?
yes, pride is a sin.
Amen to that! Christians can be bad and stupid just like everyone, we all know that; but lets not let this take away from Jesus’ glory, don’t let one pea spoil the glorious pod
but it isn’t one pea, it’s the whole flaming bushel, and they’re also the loudest and most recognized –
Ya, its best to not provoke his type. They may get to spewing hellfire and stuff for countering Christianity. He has to realize it is more than just one, it is more like 1000 of them. Granted 1000/10000000 is small, 1000 itself is still big and capable of growing.
i don’t even know what to say to that other than, i’m not going to let that bother me. all i can say is your wrong.
how do you know that is all? who knows? could be most of Christianity for all we know.
oh and for future reference3 i’m not Catholic, i’m non-denominational. (and am i crazy or were there only like 300 comment’s last night?)
Definitely crazy.
No there was about 800 two days ago.
Um, isn’t pride a sin?
Then what is the difference between a cult and a community? Or a cult and an organization?
purpose, entry requirements…. i belong to aarp – it’s an organization – members have things in common, but no body is required to take any sort of oath, just reach a certain age…
i live in a community – 40,000+, i have things in common with some, but not everything; the only requirement to to belonging to this community is to live within it’s city limits; a cult typically requires some type of isolation from others, demands that members not be in contact with family and friends if they disagree with the group, cults also usually have a single leader (typically charismatic) who decides how the group lives (code of conduct, etc) cults also use punishment such as shunning to control the behavior of members…..
I used to say that Christianity was not a cult because it didn’t have an inner circle with secret knowledge. Then I heard about the Irish report on the rape, beatings, and systematic abuse of children in R.C. schools… and that one woman in Canada who was regularly raped as a child by her parish priest, and that the church had been getting complaints about him for fifteen years previously and just kept moving him. They don’t have doctrinal secrets — unless you count the policy written by the current Pope excommunicating anyone who admitted that there was sexual abuse by priests. So maybe the Roman Catholic church is a cult. On the other hand… They commit crimes on a grand scale, extort money from the gullible by threatening them with magical curses and by promising to lift the curse if you follow all their instructions, conspire to conceal despicable crimes by their members…. So maybe they’re an organized crime family under “Ratzo, My-Way-or-the-Highway, il Papa.” Thoughts? Wouldn’t the R.C.’s consistent actions and policy count as racketeering under U.S. law?
Inner circle?
Secret knowledge?
Of course- the Vatican.
Racketeering…I love it!
Um, you don’t seem to be very well-informed on religions. Or on the definition of the word “cult.”
The difference between a cult and a religion? Political clout.
I would dare say that all religions may be viewed as a cult.
Christianity is a widespread religion, really. A “cult” is a different worldview kind of sect that claims to be Christian, but has differing views about Jesus, Life, Death, so on and so forth. Just to clarify.
A “cult” is not strictly related to Christianity, nor do they all claim to be Christian. Sometimes they are just a CULT, and don’t claim to be dependent on other religions.
And eddie- if you clicked this comment, goodnight! It’s three in the morning here; I’m out.
That movie, scared the crap out of me!
I’ve never been happier to not be associated with a religious organization.
And the kids in that movie has the most soulless eyes i’ve ever seen!
If you thought that was scary (and it was, though I do not agree the kids had soulless eyes ffs) you ought to see “homegrown Jihad”. Or even this short video (link behind my name) from Palestinian children’s television. That’ll put hair on your a**. Christians aren’t the ones going to be suicide bombers, no matter what the crazy Jesus camp lady says.
“Christians aren’t the ones going to be suicide bombers, no matter what the crazy Jesus camp lady says.” Well with the mainstream anti-abortion thing I can agree with that.
I will have to check those videos out. but I will admit most religious fundamentalists scare me.
Actually, fundamentalists really arnt that scary, except for the Muslim ones. I can’t think of any christian, hindu, jew, or buddist who would kill for their religion. The fact is, despite what you see in Hollywood, radicals just tend to be creepy, not violent.
Thank you, that is so true.
No, it isn’t. Google the words ‘radical christian terrorist’, you ignorant fool.
All “radical Christian terrorists” are denounce by mainstream Christianity, can you say that about muslim terrorist?
Yes, actually. I’m pretty sure mainstream Muslim leaders denounce their own terrorists.
They do. The Muslim Council here in the UK abhor
the terrorists’ activities.
Never hear a peep out of them in the msm. If they were so against it they should be screaming it from the rooftops. Now, I know that it could be dangerous to their health… so I will give them that. You don’t have Christians putting out “fatwah” or whatever it’s called against other Christians because they buck the radicals.
Google Captain Gordon James Klingenschmitt. Here he is praying for the death of Reverend Barry Lynn and Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation:
“One-Minute Prayer: Let us pray. Almighty God, today we pray imprecatory prayers from Psalm 109 against the enemies of religious liberty, including Barry Lynn and Mikey Weinstein, who issued press releases this week attacking me personally. God, do not remain silent, for wicked men surround us and tell lies about us. We bless them, but they curse us. Therefore find them guilty, not me. Let their days be few, and replace them with Godly people. Plunder their fields, and seize their assets. Cut off their descendants, and remember their sins, in Jesus’ name. Amen.”
Yes, you do. Anti-abortionists vs. doctors, Christian or otherwise, and the people who work for/with/near them.
This anti-abortion thing is soooo overblown. It’s NOT condoned and it’s even very publicly condemed by mainstream Christianity. These are random crazies and not representative at all.
@ Trolldujour under (or above) me
This is the perfect example of my other reply to you. Anti-abortion terrorists are overblown? Guess what else is overblown: Islamic terrorists.
Why do you think you never hear a peep out of them? Could it be because whatever shitty news feed is going into your head focuses on BAD news and not good? Or that you’re just not looking in the right place?
99% of Muslims are not terrorists, just as 99% of Christians are not. It’s the vocal >1% that get all the attention, though, and it’s a sad state of affairs.
yes. yes you can. most Muslims aren’t fundamentalists, and terrorism is most definitely NOT embraced by the mainstream Islamic community. they’re still just as human as any other religion following people, they’re still people. some are going to be violent, and most are going to abhor it. think about what you say next time, you look like an idiot.
It is so untrue. Some Christians think non-Chistians should not be allowed to live in the USA and yet others believe we have no rights under the constitution. Ex- President Bush was a prime example.
When did Bush ever say that? I don’t remember that.
August 27, 1987 – It was Bush Senior, not Shrub. He said that he didn’t think atheists should be considered as citizens. The founding fathers must be so proud….
*cough* The Covenanters *cough*
*splutter* Crusades, The Zealots, *cough*
“ahem” self-hating Western postmodern pseudo-intellectuals “cough” Saladin the Magnificent “sigh” Turkish Islamic Imperialism “ahem” people who only regurgitate mindless catch phrases rather than coming up with original thoughts “lawdy lawdy”
Careful there, s-phus, that uphill battle is on a slippery slope.
Their point is, that all religions are equal… in how full of shit they are.
Also “lawdy lawdy?” You do realize that’s a double edge sword you’re swinign’ there.
Well, I could write “Bismallah, al rahman, al rahim”, but I have a funny feeling no one would understand.
Go figure…
But someone got the sisyphus thingie! I’m SO excited!
And my point is….it is a never-ending source of amusement to me that many atheists, agnostics and extheists condemn the religious for their intolerance but are absolutely intolerant of religion-especially their birth religions.
There has to be a great truth there…I wonder if I can figure it out.
“it is a never-ending source of amusement to me that many atheists, agnostics and extheists condemn the religious for their intolerance but are absolutely intolerant of religion-especially their birth religions.”
As an atheist I’ve gotta disagree there. Just about all atheists are entirely tolerant of all religions (up until the point they screw someone over). Most may be quite verbally opposed to it, but never do anything to stop someone else from practicing (unless it screws someone over). The reason most Ex-theists are very loudly opposed to their birth religion is that once you’ve experienced the whole deal you tend to be much more knowledgeable about the crap that goes on in there.
Our definitions of Tolerance may be different here though, goddamn English…
I’m certainly not Theist (though I may be a Deist); but one thing about atheists that makes me laugh is that most are still locked into a binary mindset. “EITHER the religion around me is true, OR all religion is false.”
Personally, I lean towards “There probably is a Divine Something, but no religion on earth actually understands it well enough to speak intelligently about it.”
Except maybe Buddhists. They’ve never had evangelists, or wars over doctrine. Buddhists are pretty cool in my book.
That’s why I’m Agnostic. It’s the perfect spiritual choice for procrastinators.
i tried becoming an agnostic once, but kept forgetting to fill out the application
Well its more of you are waiting for proof. True you don’t do much searching, meh I guess you are procrastinators.
I’ll get back to you on that.
@Emperor — actually when i was young i did a lot of searching for what fit and made me feel whole. here i am decades later, even more content in my faith; but i am still a procrastinator with so many things
Just remember we are never to old or too young to continue that search. Another thing, it is easy to grow old on the outside, it is fun to remain young on the inside. I find being a loose Catholic, and questioning the world I perceive has helped me grow tremendously as a person.
hahahaha… agreed.
that is what tickles my funny bone about so many evangelical types — that if such an entity exists that was able to create the universe and all that it contains, how the heck could the human brain be able to not only ’see’ all of it, but comprehend such an entity fully? not too many years ago people swore up and down on their salvation that the sun circled the earth, that the earth was flat, that there were monsters in the seas that would eat them if they sailed too far from land, that if you tossed an accused witch in water and she floated, she was a witch (never mind she was more fluff than not) but if she sank she wasn’t, that there was nothing smaller than what could be detected by the human eye…. yet they ‘knew’ all there was to know about their god who created everything?
things have to be broken down into small, simple peices so that your audience can understand them – hence the simple stories in their book. the more you learn, the more you realize there is more to learn.
The quest of science. Always seeking never finishing.
Science changes all the time, and no, they didn’t know everything about him. They don’t claim they know everything about him in the bible. It is a choice of faith.
“how the heck could the human brain be able to not only ’see’ all of it, but comprehend such an entity fully?” – Am I understanding this right? You think we can see and understand the entire universe? That gave me a laugh!
No, DuJour, you are, in fact, getting exactly the opposite meaning from what Bad Fairie said.
thank you pm
You betcha!
@ emperor – not waiting for proof that your belief structure works for some, nor am i waiting for the rapture or any other such proof – why would someone like me need proof of something than doens’t matter? that point only holds water if you think everyone is supposed to be christian or wants to be christian for that matter…
Oh, no I was merely making a comment on the quick research I had done on agnostics in wiki. That you are awaiting knowledge before doing anything. I am not trying to force anything upon you. I do not even fully listen to my own religion. I don’t think everyone want to be Christian. Though is something doesn’t matter are you really agnostic or actually atheist. I found in their definitions that agnostics acknowledge something is there and are awaiting proof so that they have actual knowledge of it. Atheists just believe it is all wrong, then they branched to pantheists and such. I hope I did not offend.
i see, didn’t get where you were coming from before.
Glad I was able to clear it up without causing any damages.
.
Tolerance is a tough word, as it depends on the person defining it. That, I feel is why we have broken it into tolerance levels.
I hate to burst your bubble partner but there’s no such thing as a “birth religion.” We are all born atheists. we have to be taught to believe in God. Those of us who learn to think for ourselves, grow up and return to a natural state. one in which the brain is actually used.
state. One … You want to argue that any religious person does not use their brain, and that it is natural to not believe in God. Though that last part sounds off even to me, you are correct, we are born without a religion. We learn our religion, just as we learn how to interact with our society. We learn our language, culture and history. That is what we do, we learn things, we must develop. This helps shape us into who we are. People who learn a religion, have the values of the religion instilled in them, if they choose to continue following it. People who don’t learn a religion often adopt the values of the society in which they are a part of. In rare cases they develop their own set of values.
I am not saying that religion is as necessary as all of those, not in the least bit at all. All I am saying that it is unfortunate that you lump all religious people into a group that does not think for themselves. One thing I must add is that in Christianity, you are encouraged to ask questions of your religion. This is important as many teachings are parables and not true stories. You are allowed to question the validity of your God, He only asks you to repent in the end. Well pending His actual existence. Pascals wager comes into play here.
Please if you want to represent the agnostic or atheist, please do so in a better manner.
I don’t need to “represent” anyone or anything my friend. I am what I am. A thinking human being who doesn’t believe in talking snakes, magic apples or human sacrifice. A person who spent many years as a passionately committed Christian. Pouring over the “word”. Devouring it daily. (cover to cover several times) in a genuine attempt to learn how to walk as a “man of God.”
Unfortunately, what I learned was that the being described in that book is not an omnipotent, benevolent creator, worthy of worship, but instead is a demented, genocidal, megalomaniac, worthy only of fear and loathing.
As far as the Morality issue you chose to bring up goes. Every single nonbeliever that I personally associate with holds a higher personal standard than any Christian I ever met.
Please don’t take any of this as a personal attack. I have nothing against you or any other of the “faithful.” Having said that however. It is my personal opinion that religion is the single worst evil ever to befall mankind.
Cheers
Stephen
Due to your tone, I could not be offended at all. I thank you for presenting yourself well.
Those stories were just meant to be lessons not direct translation. I myself personally find attempting to read the “Good Book” from beginning to end and then attempting to live my life by its guidelines a little weird. On the whole the only lesson from the Bible I actually took to heart was the Golden Rule. Nothing more, yes as a Catholic I am told the Jesus suffered for my sins, etc etc. I am allowed to question the validity of this myself, which I do often. I just think that regardless of one’s faith background or lack there of you would be hard pressed to find a person with better values than to treat any person as well as you would like to be treated. I understand how you could dislike the Bible and its fantastical stories. (I would like to use the fantasy definition of that word in this instance.) One reason I am not a Bible belter, but rather a loose following Catholic.
I feel that almost with anything, that if you immerse yourself into it fully, you will find faults with it and grow tired of it. A great thing about atheism is that you can never immerse yourself too much. You can’t over-rationalize everything, as you can always break it down further to a more reasonable response.
Morals based on what a book written 2000 years ago seem a bit outdated. That is why I only took the lessons and not the outlining of how one should act. I daresay my morals would not differ that much from thine own. I respect elders, apply the Golden rule, generally value life and the time I have given. A more devout Christian would probably have substituted much about Christ, what he did, how he said I should act and such. Though as I said, I much rather take the parables for what they were, lessons on how one should act, not on how one must act. So in that sense I do what I feel is right in the current situation, not based on an outline given to me by my faith.
Cheers good sir,
Emperor.
@Stephen Van Tuyl — just came back from checking your website — most impressive photos! where was the shot of the columbia gorge taken? it looks familiar, but….80 miles of scenery is a bit much to remember of the top of ‘my’ brain…
@bad fairie- Thanks for the visit. I appreciate it! The photo in question was taken at the look-out near Multnomah Falls.
@emperor
“One thing I must add is that in Christianity, you are encouraged to ask questions of your religion. ”
i so beg to differ on this — in more than on instance, from more that one denomination, i’ve been told flat out by elders that i didn’t need to worry whatever i was asking questions about.
@stephen – thought it was from over in that area, but i’s been a heck of a long time since i ws last there
@Faire I didn’t say you would get answers.
Um it may just be that I am speaking from my personal religion (Catholic) but I have asked questions, mostly being told that they were meant as lessons not true accounts. (Old testament)
So yes I was encouraged to ask questions.
Just to stir the pot Emperor. Try asking this question. What kind of monster would orchestrate an atrocity like Passover?
I will, but I have a feeling it was to strike down the unworthy, which always puzzled me how God goes through a makeover in the New Testament. He wants so many people to come to Christianity but kills so many Egyptians. I can assume that he was setting up for the 10 commandments. You know the false idols. Though I will ask this question.
Listen to what you just said my friend.”it was to strike down the unworthy”. Do you honestly believe that all those children were evil? That every family from which the first born was taken were evil? Is it not more likely that the majority were just normal people like you and I, going through their daily lives struggling to raise their children and pay the bills? It was by Pharoah’s order that the Children of Israel were held captive. The people had no say in the matter. Yet God, in his “infinite wisdom” decided to slaughter all those innocent children and bring horrendous grief and suffering into the hearts of all those parents because he was pissed off at one man. That’s mass genocide any way you look at it my friend, and the evil rests with the perpetrator of the crime. Think about this while you ponder the “pat answer” you get when you ask your question.
Of course I do not believe that. I am stabbing at the response I will get. You would think such a powerful being would be able to do what Zeus did daily and just zap him with a nice bolt of lightning. Not like they had windows back then.
“Is it not more likely that the majority were just normal people like you and I, going through their daily lives struggling to raise their children and pay the bills?”
I appreciate that I may have fooled you. I am but a 20 year old. Just a phone bill and school bills at the moment. I hope that I have presented myself well enough up until this point to actually make me seem wise beyond my years. I hope this does not discredit my future contributions but I had to set it straight.
Cheers,
Emperor.
*gasp* The emperor is a fraud!! He’s just a boy!
(Just kidding. Yeah, you sound more mature than your average 20 year old.)
Thanks. I just hope I don’t get discredited in the future. I like my current standing.
No-one is going to discredit you my friend. Your opinion carries just as much weight as mine or anybody’s. Just make sure it is actually your opinion and not that of your priest, teacher or parents. What you choose to believe in or not to believe in is your decision alone and should be born of intelligent research and use of your logical mind. Ask questions and demand real answers. Don’t let them feed you statements like ” The human mind can’t comprehend the ways of God.” or “you just have to take it on faith.” These are nothing more than “blankets” they use to throw over inconvenient questions for which they have no intelligent answers. Embrace your doubts and above all, listen to your own inner voice. Our conversation tells me that you are an intelligent man. Use that!
Keep smiling
Stephen
Thanks, and I have nothing but the same to say about you as well. I thoroughly enjoyed out discussion here and greatly value the input you well, put forth.
Thanks again.
Emperor.
@Emperor
“Those stories were just meant to be lessons not direct translation.”
Unfortunately, that is where so many disparities in modern Christianity come from. Nobody can decide what anything was meant to be, or what it is meant for. Some decide the Story of Creation to be literal, as I’m sure you know. Others call it allegorical (I actually had a very interesting lesson in high school that pointed out how similarly the 7-days method ties with the Earth’s actual development). In the end, everyone thinks one thing is right and another is wrong, and we draw our borders to separate from others. This is also the reason for so much of the manipulation in religion. Such is the nature of the task of trying to interpret a thousands-year-old book.
This is why I (a former Catholic and avid theology student, now Idon’tknowwhat, also 20 years old
) have faith (keyword) in science. Nothing is sacred, and scrutiny and interpretation are encouraged; there is also no possibility of a (seriously scientific) splinter sect to diverge and wage war over which theory is true or not true. It’s happening now and it is empirical, so there is very little chance to distort it because of time and lack of evidence.
This is why I bounce back and forth between the idea of religion (not the religious) being, maybe not evil, but flawed in nature. It is too open to interpretation and manipulation, and invokes too many strong emotions to be a valid explanation of reality.
I kind of forgot where I was going with this post, because it’s late and I got very little sleep last night. I hope it’s food for thought for you and others, though.
You are quite right, there is much debate on the literal acceptance of the Bible. Personally, when a book offers up a story of creation that clashes with common sense, well I have trouble accepting it. I trust my scientific mind over my spiritual one many a times. (For Seth) What we need more of is science.
I know that dinosaurs existed, it is tangible proof, had the bible mentioned that somehow dinosaurs were there but killed off by the will of god quickly, well that is more plausible. Though you would still have to pluck my eyes out to prevent me from seeing the wool. I therefore accept most stories from that book as lessons rather than recitations of actual events. If these hardcore religious types used some scientific and logical deduction, or if they had any interest in the actual truth at all rather than blind faith; well we wouldn’t have this nice debate to discuss how people interpret the bible.
I believe in both science and genesis 1. Nobody writes a scientific report in verse form: it’s a poem for goodness sake…
Science tells us what happened, the poem tells us why…
I would say the poem more of postulates as to why, we don’t want to sound pious and proclaim we got it right. As in all science let us leave room for error.
@AC
Well, they didn’t have the scientific method back then.
This, I think, is another example of what I was talking about. I do not find Genesis 1 to be a poem more than just a creation story meant to be pretty and meaningful like every other creation story, Christian, Navajo, Hindu, or any other, because they simply did not have the methods back then.
Who knows!
Well aye… Every culture has a creation story just like a load of them have flood stories (In Greek stories it’s “Deucalion’s ark”)… If all we get out of all of them is that “God created the Earth” and “God judged but showed mercy to the good man” then that’s not so bad…
@AC
Hehe, I agree, that’s not so bad at all. I think we can leave it to those two messages and not create an organization around it, you know?
(Although I think the Earth was just a happy accident… but that’s a discussion for another time).
Now then, it’s almost 4 AM, and I need to be getting to sleep. Nice talking with you all.
You guys should get a chat/IRC channel going.
So did you flunk history class or try to claim religious exemption to keep from learning just how violent and death-obsessed Xity is?
… Another one, it is Christianity not Xity.
double fail: it’s xianity not xity
nothing personal in the following emp, just a good spot to either stir up a bees nest or put out a smoldering fire
X= greek letter chi often seen in ancient manuscripts intwined with P (greek letter for rho) which are the first 2 letters christ in greek. emperor constantine I added this symbol to flag
)
for more details see:
{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christogram} so this isn’t an effort by the secular to remove christ from christmas (even though it is a pagan holiday that the rc co-opted to entice followers
Oh, I know but I made a reference above, in my conversation with braak about why it is important to see Christ in Christianity. I compared it to changing Allah’s name to S-h, S representing the most important part of the name. I have no problem with it in general. Though if you are going to attack Christianity (not you fairy referencing the other guy) have enough respect for the religion and its followers to call it by its real name. Would be as disrespectful as to call atheists just theists.
wouldn’t be disrespectful to call an atheist a theist, but it would be kind of ignorant since they are two different things:
.
atheist: someone who denies the existence of god
.
theist: one who believes in the existence of a god or gods
.
whereas using an x in place of christ in long words is accepted by most as a shortcut in writing and has no connotations other than being quicker to write out
I’m with Emperor on this one. A lot of Christians don’t like seeing the X in there. We’re not partial to having our deity abbreviated.
Absolutely right, Eric. The idea that it carries no connotations is ridiculous.
I have known people who used it specifically because it offended their atheist sensibilities to type out the word “Christ” in “Christianity.” No, that’s not everyone but it’s quite often used in a derogatory fashion.
I made the right reference used the wrong wording. It wouldn’t be disrespectful so much as ignorant. Not putting the Christ in Christianity is basically talking about something we all know as Christianity but treating it as not worth to say the whole thing. So actually in a way it is disrespectful. Oh and the reference I was going for was taking the a from an atheist makes him into something he is not. Taking Christ from Christianity makes it something it is not, but still references the original religion.
Ummmmmm, FYI, The Crusades were done by Catholics, not christians. Yes most everybody puts Christians all in one catogory with the catholics, but there is a huge difference. The fact that we use the same religiouse book (sort of) dose not matter.
They were the only Christians around at the time…
And how dose the fact that you base your beliefs on the exact same doctrine “Not matter?”
“The fact that we use the same religiouse [sic] book (sort of) dose [sic] not matter.” You mean, that Catholic document voted into canon by a council of bishops called the Bible? Have fun reading the letter to Barnabas with its multi-anal rabbits if you’re so anti-Catholic. Oh, and Catholic means “universal,” as in the Universal Christian Church. Are you saying is that there were no Christians until a Catholic monk decided to break from the church 1500 years after Christ? Oh wait, you must be claiming you don’t believe in Catholic (as opposed to Nestorian, Arian, Montanist) doctrines like the trinity and the virgin birth?
Read your history. You forget about the Copts and the Orthodox Christians who were busy holding off the muslim invasions of eastern europe at the same time.
Yeah, but those sects of Christianity haven’t led to any subsequent religions. Nearly all Christian faiths outside Ethiopia, Greece, and Russia are descended from Protestantism by way of Catholicism.
Wait — You do not consider Catholics to be Christians?
Christianity is the umbrella term. Catholics are definitely Christians and were certainly Christians at the time of the crusades (~1100 AD). I think most people put Catholics into the same category of Christians, which is correct — not the other way around, like you say. Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox Christians, and early forms of Christianity (not under the purview of the Roman Empire) are still correctly lumped under the category of “Christian.” Maybe I’m missing something, and I’m not trying to be a jerk. I just wanted to clarify that.
Maybe expecting you to know a particle of the history you claim is too much to ask.
The schism you make so much of, with Martin Luther rejecting the Diet of Worms and essentially creating the distinction between Catholic and Protestant, happened AFTER the Crusades. “Christians” don’t get to duck responsibility by foisting it off on the “Catholics” because at the time there was no such distinction.
Perhaps they can use it to dodge responsibility for The Inquisition? That would make them responsible for only about half as much torture and suffering
NOBODY EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!
boom. gotcha.
we have such tools at our disposal as the element of suprise,
So, there were no Christians until Martin Luther initiated the Protestant Reformation? In fact, Christianity is a religion that’s younger than Islam by about 800 years?
the nicean (sp?) council established which books to incorporate into the christian bible (ca 325) and christianity started with the prostilytizing (sp?) of the 70 disciples. granted, they were mostly jews, but they were seen as a seperate sect, not part of main stream judaism. christianity started being viewed as a seperate faith after the deaths of the original apostles.
link 1: {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed}
link 2: {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Christianity}
Yes, but I was responding to the claim that Catholics aren’t Christians; by implication, there were no Christians until a non-Catholic Christian church came about. Good research though.
goes back to when i was a kid and so many of the mainline xian churches were claiming catholics weren’t xian… didn’t get their logic then and don’t now…. i knew you were tossing that in there to jab the non-thinker, but figured i’d toss some factoids in to heat the water a bit
and i always give sources when i can, stops some of the trolls from going on tirades about how they get asked for sources & cites yet are never given any. if i’m going to argue with a troll, i want it to be over something constructive, interesting, or at least new
looking at this comment from the outside leaves me baffled! differences in doctrine doesn’t determine the root of your faith does it? isn’t everyone who follows your christ for ’salvation’ a christian be default? or how do you determine who is a christian and who isn’t if not by belief in your christ? and if catholics aren’t christians, why do so many protestant churches have the same dogma all the way down until they hit on the pope? they even appear to toe the line politically?
not slamming anyone here, just totally confused by what appears to be broken logic
Um, The Mulism who commit suicide bombings are breaking the laws of Islam. Just as how the Christians who bomb abortion clincis are breaking the 10 commandments.
Every religion has it’s crazies. I’ve my fair share of radical Jews (some in my own family), radicalism is not confined to one religion, and they are all guilty of perpatuating hate.
Mulism? (^_^)
I think that describes most religions, if you mean being about as willing to listen to reasoned opinion as your average mule. Hee-haw!
When was the last time a Christian bombed abortion clinics? Just because Christians are against abortion dose not mean that they get violent about it. And I do notice that it is Islamic religiouse leaders who are encouraging people to blow themselves up. I ahve never even heard of Christians doing this.
“Just because Christians are against abortion dose not mean that they get violent about it”
Sadly, no.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm
Radical Christians can be just as violent as Radical Muslims.
Actually it’s surprisingly common (Not suicide bombings, but bombings nonetheless)… The majority of Christians abhor it but there is a very devout minority who think that they are doing “God’s Work” in killing a doctor to save fetuses.
Why kill the doctor? They’re just doing their job. Why not kill the mother. If the fetus is going to die anyway, let it go down with the ship.
Nice one, Albert
You want Cristian bombing? Look up Northern Island in the past 100 years
Not done in the name of Christianity.
WTF? It is indeed done in the name of Christianity, since each side is convinced the other is going to hell!
I recall it in the 90s. And I’m pretty sure abortion doctors have been murdered even more recently than that (as in, within the last few years)
Yes, they DO get VERY violent.
Have a link.
no, actually, mainstream islamic leaders don’t encourage the booms and bangs. you have circular logic, my friend.
Actually, some translations of the Ten Commandments say that “Thou shalt not kill another Jew” and there are tons of lines in both the Bible and Quran where the god is ordering X Y or Z group put to death. Ie. Death penalty for working on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:2), adultery (Leviticus 20:10), and cussing out your parents (Leviticus 20:9).
And fully agreed that every religion has whackjobs who go too far.
Religitards.
The original Hebrew text of the ten commandments is “thou shall not murder”. Period. It does say it’s ok to kill this group or that one.
Okay, stop being reasonable! You’re going to ruin someone’s prejudiced view of Judaism!
that’s the only comment I’ve seen yet that’s absolutely true, when seen in any religious light.
“I can’t think of any christian, hindu, jew, or buddist who would kill for their religion.”
What about those Christian fundamentalists who blow up Planned Parenthood centers and clinics who offer abortions?
Or the KKK, who are self-described as a fundamentalist Christian organization?
Just because you hear about them less often in the news doesn’t mean they aren’t there. It’s not the religion that makes people violent; it’s the person’s mental instability. Religion just gives some nutters justification – like those people that say Satan/the aliens/Barney the Dinosaur told them to kill people.
Wait wait wait, we all know that Barney the Dinosaur has been quotes several times telling people to kill.
*Quoted*…
agreed. he is the Charles Manson of hallucinations.
So when was the last Planned Parenthood/abortion clinic bombing?
January 22, 2009 Matthew L. Derosia, 32, rammed a SUV into the front entrance of a Planned Parenthood clinic in St. Paul, Minnesota. Okay, that’s not a bombing.
December 6, 2007: Chad Altman and Sergio Baca were arrested for the arson of Dr. Curtis Boyd’s clinic in Albuquerque. Wait, wait, no, that was arson.
September 13, 2006 David McMenemy of Rochester Hills, Michigan crashed his car into the Edgerton Women’s Care Center in Davenport, Iowa. He then doused the lobby in gasoline and then started a fire. McMenemy committed these acts in the belief that the center was performing abortions, however Edgerton is not an abortion clinc. Okay, that one wasn’t even really an abortion clinic, I obviously need to dig deeper here…
June 11, 2001: An unsolved bombing at a clinic in Tacoma, Washington destroyed a wall, resulting in US$6000 in damages. Ah, there we go, there’s your answer.
Hmm, I had only heard of a couple of those. Okay, so let’s be generous and assume there’s one a year, with a death maybe every ten years. (The last death I can think of was as a result of the Sandy Springs bombing, and that was well over a decade ago.)
Now, in the same time frame, how many religiously-, ethically-, and/or politically-motivated Muslim suicide bombings occurred? (For bonus points, exclude Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan.)
Just because one group is more evil than the other does not mean that the lesser is good ^_^
nicely stated Amadeus.
cheers to the name as well (assuming it’s a mozart reference)
In the united states (given thats the only location covered in examples above)? One, assuming you’ll count plane hijackings as bombings- or 3 if you count them as separate incidences.
You forget, years earlier another attempt was made on the world trade centers. The vans in the basement. Which Osama took credit for.
Interesting note: the ***holes who were responsible for that are now rotting in American jails. What’s Bin Laden doing?
If I knew, do you think you would necessarily have to ask that question? I would have called the US embassy in Canada and told them. Then this conversation would look redundant.
Well those are only the attacks on buildings. The harassment of the employees, the threats, etc is pretty much ongoing.
And just because Muslims do it more often doesn’t exempt Xity from the “deadly cult” label.
Wow, three people getting very defensive. I was just interested in making a comparison.
There’s a family planning clinic near my house that always has one lone old man picketing it. (Sitting in a lawnchair outside, actually) There are more than one old guy that take part. Here’s the funny thing for me: they carry different signs, all of them in bad repair. Letters are missing, and it’s impossible to read some of them. These guys are here rain or shine, so the question I have to ask is: if this topic is so important to you that you’ll brave bad weather to make your point, why isn’t it important enough to you that you’ll repair your sign, or make a new one?!?
Not everyone has the resources of a multi-million dollar business at their disposal, nor the talents of their Pro Bowl-friends to help with signmaking.
Or ninjas.
or wal-mart, sharpies, some poster board and a piece of wood.. total cost: <$20
Throw in a dictionary to spell words right. Misspelled words on your sign are the downfall of even the most dedicated protester.
Wall Fly said it. My guess is these guys are being paid by a forced pregnancy group to sit here, and they don’t really care enough to get a $1.39 Sharpie and color in the letters that fell off their cardboard sign.
Er, is “We’re less violent than Muslim extremists” really your idea of a high moral standard?
between 1970 and the mid ’90s sectarian violence between 2 flavours of Christianity, led to the deaths of more than 3000 people in Northern Ireland, Great Britain, and other countries in continental Europe.
question- when the laws weren’t enforced as well as they are here, or people are left on their own in the face of hatred and zealots, what tends to happen? more bombings/killings/zealotry.
““I can’t think of any christian, hindu, jew, or buddist who would kill for their religion.”
What about those Christian fundamentalists who blow up Planned Parenthood centers and clinics who offer abortions?
Or the KKK, who are self-described as a fundamentalist Christian organization?”
In this instance the kkk are using a religion to justify their notions, not killing for their religion. I don’t think it appropriate to use this group as it is denounced by everyone including the religion which they claim to be an organization of.
His response still stands true, as you did not mention a killing based on the stated religions.
Though you are right, religious killings happen all the time, for every religion, they are just not as well broadcasted.
News today out of Ireland that a group of Protestants grabbed clubs, went into the Catholic part of town, and beat to death a 49 year old Roman Catholic man for the crime of being Catholic.
Damn Catholics and their hokey religions and ancient weapons. They must be stopped!!!
-
Honestly though, that’s sick. I am not Catholic, don’t agree with them, and have some serious issues with their creed and doctrine, but no one deserves that.
See now that response would have been more appropriate. Thanks PortlandMark.
You do have a point… I was thinking of that particular group’s rhetoric (they claim to be doing “God’s work”) more than their actual motivation. I blame it on being half-awake and on allergy medication at the time.
Anyway, the anti-abortion bombings are entirely religion-based, and often condoned/supported by religious groups. Therefore, that part of my post is still appropriate.
Hindus have killed for their “religion” (loaded term in respect to Hinduism) before. See the independence of India.
There have been more than enough cases of Christian violence stated.
The current Israeli PM would gladly kill a Muslim.
I don’t know of any Buddhists that have killed in the name of Buddhism, but it’s not normally classified as a religion, anyway.
Even those damned Buddhists, who are lighting themselves on fire!
>.>
Well, that’s another matter. But it is true, even the teachings of Buddah have been perverted into weapons of cruelty (ancient china for the most part.)
All religions have blood on their hands. Each of the three big religions had at least one period in history in which they have killed thousands or millions because God told them to do so.
Well, Sri Lanka = hindus and buddhists
Europe = colonial history (millions of deaths) and two world wars. And we in the west certainly make sure to arm the world.
What about fundamentalist Christians who bomb abortion clinics in the US? They also apparently create “hit lists” of doctors whom they plan to kill. That is scary too.
They’re no scary? Seriously? Because there’s a story in the news right now of a several people who murdered a young girl because of their religion. And another of a family attempting to murder their cancer stricken son because of their religion. The mother of the dead girl was described as a ‘devout Christian.’
Does the name Paul Hill ring a bell?
No it doesn’t. Tell us more?
I know of a Joe Hill – writes some damn fine horror novels.
I thought Joe Hill was a slain labor leader?
Joe Hill was a famous leader of the IWW, but Joe Hill is also the pen name of Joseph Hillstrom King, Stephen King’s son.
man, you are stupid.
what about all those people that say “god told me too?”
what about abortion clinic bombers like eric rudolph?
what about the idiots that deny their kids health care and rely on prayer to treat diabetes instead? and thats just scratching the surface of christian fanaticism.
you need to read some history of india. you need to read some middle eastern history as well. you need to read some asian history too. have you ever read a newspaper in your life? you can start there first and then hit the history books.
maybe you just need to read something period and start somewhere.
Ever heard of a fellow named Tim McVeigh? Or perhaps Aaron Snyder, tried to assassinate the Colorado governor, with an entry in his day planner for that day with the words “I rule this country for Jesus Christ”? Or how about Mark David Uhl, arrested for manufacturing explosives to be used against another Christian sect? Or Dayton Lee Calaway, a 19 year old terrorist who tried to ignite a bomb in a Burleson, TX church?
Please educate yourself before you make such stupid statements.
Yeah, McVeigh is one they’d rather forget.
He was trained by radical muslims.
Okay, I finally get it. You really are just trolling. You can’t possibly be that wrong every time you post.
He was, in fact, trained by the US Army.
He was trained to be a soldier there, but where did he get his radical thinking? Was he a member of the KKK or a white supremacist group or something? I’m being sincere here, I’ve really never heard.
I think it’s what is professionally known as “batsh*t crazy”.
Froo, I really don’t want to sound like I’m attacking anything or anybody that you like, but I’m afraid I’m about to.
First, the good stuff: he served honorably in Desert Storm, and was decorated with the Bronze Star, and received an honorable discharge. He was angry that women and children had been killed by the government at Waco, over what had started as an ATF search for illegal weapons. He was a huge fan of Star Trek: The Next Generation.
Now, the rest.
McVeigh was a member of the Michigan Militia movement. He started out as a Republican, but claimed later in life that he was more of a Libertarian. He left the NRA because they were too liberal for him. He spent time trying to convince people at gun shows to kill the FBI sniper that shot the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, Janet Reno, and the judge that was involved in the Waco fiasco. He hated taxation and gun control. The bombing of the Murrah Building was an idea he got from reading “The Turner Diaries”, wherein a terrorist attack causes the US government to take away everyone’s guns. In the novel, this leads to a rebellion by all right thinking Christian White folk, and the blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Jews, and race traitors are all put to death; New York City and Israel are nuked. A plane carrying a nuke is flown into the Pentagon. In short, McVeigh hoped to trigger the Second American Revolution.
McVeigh, in short, is the perfect example of the kind of person described in the recent Homeland Security report that got some segments of The Right so upset a few months back.
I may have missed a couple points there, but those were the highlights.
I don’t like Tim McVeigh, I think he’s a nut. I just hadn’t heard where he got his views from. I can see that he is so far right wing that he’s almost left wing again, along the same lines as Hitler (sorry Godwin).
Yeah, I’m sorry if I implied you would like him, I certainly know you better than that.
I think, however, that he’s a pretty good example of a certain, growing movement in the country right now, as evidenced by the DHS report requested and authorized by the Bush administration and released recently.
None of those attack an entire country or way of life they way radical muslims want to destroy western civilization. They are just random nut jobs who are denounced by mainstream Christian organizations.
Actually, troll, they’re attacking American citizens and their way of life. They’re trying to take away rights, kill innocent people for looking/believing differently, and they basically want to destroy the foundation of the US as we know it.
Also, there are other serious terrorist groups out there that ARE Christian.
I respectfully disagree with you in a strong way. Would you consider hanging a person not violent? As christian members of the KKK did in the name of Christ. To perpetuate segregation , justifying it with the Bible. How about hiding in the bushes and shooting a doctor through his window at home, killing him? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/200834.stm Please are you really going to believe that lie. Lie to yourself not others. Do just a little research that opinion is really. Completly wrong
Try the ones that kill physicians and workers at women’s health clinics.
Tell that to those already murdered in the name of Christ.
Sweet Jesus you’re in denial if you think they’re aren’t legions of Fundies who would gladly kill for their religion.
It’s humanity. It’s a murderous nature. Christianity, as well as Islam as well as the laws of the country (the closest fixed moral standards for Atheists) tell everyone to not kill, yet every religion is guilty of killing for or against their belief.
The reason the law says not to kill is because… well… there are people who kill, duh *shrugs* Law is created to curb the bad side of human nature, to help the world live more at peace.
Bwa-ha-ha, not counting a few abortion providers and receptionists and security volunteers, you mean!
Have you never heard of the inquisition? the crusades? Witch trials? There is more blood ont he hands of the christian church than on any other 3 religions combined. Add in sexual molestaion by clergy, and a pope that claims condems spread AIDS and it becomes obvious that Christianity is the most dangerous cancer to ever infect society.
/hug
agreed. religions should stop comparing “we’re SOOOO much less evil than the other guys!!” because really, it depends on how the laws are enforced, because the people here stating that christians have less bombings and killings going on than Muslims, need to think about the crusades, and how it turns out when you CAN get away with that stuff.
i can’t disagree that some people claim to be Christians that are not. but i can say that any Christian who does that is a big liar about their faith
I’m not letting this almost 1200 post thread die. LOL Anyway, NObama makes a good point. Just because you call yourself a Christian doesn’t mean that you really are. George W. Bush calls himself a Christian, but I think he makes a really lousy one. Ironically enough, the best example of this I’ve seen is the Family Guy episode where Peter meets Jesus and takes him to see Bush. That was a fine fine moment in television there.
But anyway, calling yourself a Christian and actually being one are two different things.
Sake. You do realise that that video has been edited and subtitled for humour and is a joke i.e. not real.
ac – that film isn’t a joke, we really do have people that twisted over here, and as society changes the more twisted they get, and the more of them crawl out of the woodwork.
Yeah but Anniee seems to honestly think that that is genuinely from a Palestinian TV show…
but anniee has some screws not just loose, but outright missing
she’s as twisted as the woman in this film.
OH REALLY? Is that so, you nasty b*tch?
Well, first of all you’ve never met me and have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Second of all, take some Midol because you’re obviously about to be on the rag and can’t handle your hormones. Either that or you’re off your meds again.
AC – yes, I’ve seen entire episodes of that show – it IS a children’s show, and it is filmed live before a group of very young boys. Are you retarded or did you miss all this? Do your dam* research before sounding even dumber than you already do.
Alright, no need to resort to petty insults.
Everyone remember this is a humour site.
Now we get to watch the over-zealous religious right trash the caption. *sigh*
It’s the fault of the overzealous antagonistic-towards-Christianity left – you’ve radicalized them with your constant hatred and attacks. They feel they have to fight now.
You do know how it happens that people get radicalized, right? I’m sure you’re familiar with how it’s the US’ fault that half of Islam is radicalized now, so this concept shouldn’t be too difficult for you to grasp.
Yeesh first I was thinking Lamictal but now I’m thinking Haldol.
Moron b*tch.
Aaaand it’s time to lock up the sharps.
@pittypat and don’t forget the custom jacket with all the buckles and extra long sleeves to keep her hands warm
….. Anniee….. you are so morally upright, i can hardly stand it. it’s going to make me… WRECK MY PANTS LIKE THE INCREDIBLE HULK!
Mee-OW!
Matthew 22:36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Odd how often the radical “Christians” seem to forget that.
Pick n choose. Very common.
Love thy neighbour as thyself… as long as they believe the same things…
Love your child, as long as he’s not gay.
lol so true…….
Best comment so far, Sarah, that just about sums it up!
and look just like you too
PM, because we don’t believe in Anniee’s version of God, we don’t get to judge how well she follows the written teachings of said God. Despite the fact that it’s plain to anyone that Anniee is very angry, will not forgive, doesn’t seek to understand, hates the sinner more than the sin, takes spiritual pride in her faith, and essentially attempts to usurp the place of God by continually judging God’s creation, and especially His other children.
But, you know, she doesn’t have to listen to us; what do we know? We’re bad evil heathens who are going to burn in Hell for all eternity.
hehe, worse, were bad heathens who like screwing with weaker minds then our own. We’re bullies.
>:)
“than”
Sorry, it was bugging me. Good point, otherwise!!
grammar fixing fail: ‘we’re’ not were – thirty lashes for you!
i don’t know about you seth, but i plan on spending my after life in valhalla: fighting and dying each day only to be reserected at night to feast and party. and my dogs will be there because odin never said animals don’t have souls….
besides if she’s what’s waiting in heaven, ain’t no way in all of holy h3ll i want to be there even if i were an xian sheeple
I seriously doubt she’ll pass muster. Peter will take one look at Anniee and say you aren’t even good enough for hell!
They’d be afraid she’d try to take over Hell, and fail miserably, causing it to freeze over in the process.
I’ll be joining you. Until Ragnarok, that is.
That’s my kind of heaven.
HELLL YES!
i love Ragnarok and Nordic references in Christian debates, they make such a good statement.
ODIN WATCHESSSS
Norse mythology is particularly fantastic because the Nords never took their gods that seriously. Which is, honestly, how it should be today.
yeah, gotta love the Vikings
)
i mean, i’m sure it was comforting for them to have a god, especially when they/someone they love was in danger of dying, but they didn’t need to live their entire lives according to outdated things. The gods may have been hot-blooded and never really preached the peace message Christianity did, i’d massively prefer the more directly violent Norse gods rather than absolute believers in Christianity- at least they could be honest and solve their problems, whilst the Bible causes massive debate and confusion. (ps- sorry for the lack of caps, i’m at my school right now and this computer’s shift button isn’t working correctly- did what i could for caps, sorry
Nords? ROFL!
@HairySexyTroll
I’m guessing you got the reference?
@Tyler
The vikings were even pretty progressive, what with the men leading during war and women leading in peacetime.
“They didn’t need to live their lives according to outdated things.” Exactly right; they lived for the moment, whether that be huddled around a fire to survive the winter and telling wild stories, out fishing and hunting, or on the battlefield.
amen portlandmark
So your giving others responsibility for your own actions? And you wonder why the left calls you sheep
I think the definition of religion is “giving others responsibility for your own actions,” whether it be a preacher, God, a cult leader, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
I’m old enough to remember when “The devil made me do it!” was a joking excuse for idiotic behavior. Now it’s “God made me do it!”
So Xtian.
It is important to Christians to have the Christ in Christian, you know, considering their faith is based around Him and all.
Mine was in reference to Aimmee’s “moron Bitch” response to Pittypat’s post. It was so typical of her type of xtian practice. Kinda got lost in all the nestings.
Understood, but what you are doing, which you repeated is like me changing Allah to s-h. S representing the part of the name most important to Islam. I understand that if you are not a Christian it does not mean anything to you, but it is important to Christians. That’s all, no hard feelings I hope.
Yeah, we don’t worship the X-men. We worship Christ, which I always wonder how the X ended up as a replacement for that anyway.
It’s shorthand for “ichthos” which is the fish symbol in Greek. According to what I’ve heard, early Christians were mostly in hiding and had to keep quiet about what they were. They had little secret signs they would use to identify each other, and the fish was one. If you suspected another Christian, you would draw the little Ichthos fish in the dust and wait for the countersign.
-
The Greek for the Ichthos, IIRC, is an X, making the shorthand for Christian “X”. You’ll have to forgive me, it’s been a while since I studied Greek
Wow, Froo. I knew about the secret signs and the fish, but I always though the “X” designation was a bit of a slam from non-Christians, where “X” is an unknown, the way it is used in high school algebra. You’re full of info!
I’m trying to find cites for you on the “X” part of it, but I can’t seem to find any. I’ll keep looking. I think it partly developed because the Greek letters for Ichthus were ΙΧΘΥΣ and sometimes got abbreviated to just the “X”. I’ve also heard that the little fishy symbol would sometimes be abbreviated to just the tail, making it more of an “X” than a fish.
-
Yes, I’m full of info, but as Hubby says, most of it is useless unless I want to be on Jeopardy
FTR, my Neo-Con parents considered it a slam, and would never let us abbreviate the word Christian. After hearing those stories and doing a little research, I never thought it was a slam.
I learned something today! Despite my best efforts otherwise, I learned something today!
Thanks for taking the time to find it out for us. Well also for letting us know. The “X” is considered bad not because what it represents but what it replaces. You are taking Christ out of a word. Not a big deal to me but according to Christianity it matters, so I try and defend it when I can.
I’m very much not a Christian, but I agree with you. There’s no reason to go disrespecting someone’s religion just because it doesn’t work for me.
@ Portland, Thank you. Mutual respect is always a good notion, regardless of upbringing, and our religious or non-religious views.
I’ve got no decent citations, unless you’ll all accept me having heard it independantly of froofrou.
Aha, I always thought it was X like criss-cross. The more you know! *star goes across screen*
oh. i thought it had something to do with the X being a crossed pair of lines, like the cross the christian savior died for them on, could that be part of it too?
no, actually the rest of the world made the x thing cause they wanted the name Christ out of words. believe me i would know as a christian myself.
Gotcha. Nope…no offense at all. Good point that I’ll try to remember….although it’s so much easier to type for the keyboard challenged like meself.
Thanks.
Annnnnnd, did you see what I was replying to you boehead turd? GET REAL. I make no apology for that; only an apology that I couldn’t think of anything worse at that moment.
Also, if the name fits…
That should read “bonehead.” And brak, can we get it straight here that my name does not have any m’s in it – are you dyslexic or stupid? You’ve got the vowels reversed with the consonants, “m”s instead of “n”s and there are two “e”s at the end. It is not a homophone of “AMY” but of “ANNIE”. Jeesh, how annoying. And when someone responds to a comment of mine by saying merely, “well I was thinking X drug, but now I’m thinking it’s X heavy drug” she gets called what she gets called.
Froo, for the record I am NOT drinking so don’t start that nonsense. Fittyfat was being a moron b*tch and she got called on it, simple as that.
You might have more credibility if you did blame it on the drinking instead of just being a soulless hypocritical harpy, but it’s your reputation, so have at it.
You’re the hypocrite for pretending that I wasn’t responding to the absolute NASTIEST kind of comment there is, and thus my reply wasn’t even on the level or calibre of pittyfart’s – methinks you protest too much about how righteous you are and how evil I am. Much too much.
Where have I ever placed myself higher than you in the morality spectrum? You’re constantly telling me what a bad Christian I am, not the other way around. Put down the bottle, darling. Your brain cells are starting to get lonely.
Couldn’t resist, huh? Well I’m beginning to realize that the real problem here is that you actually DO need medication and you ain’t getting it. The constant ups and downs, the erratic wild swings, the short term memory failure – honey, seek help.
When oh, when, will it dawn on you that I’m not in the slightest embarrassed about drinking and have no problem saying “Yep, that post was booze-fueled.” This one isn’t. I just got home from work my little undermedicated friend; sorry but no go. When I’m drinking, I’ll tell YOU, not the other way around.
Two of you. Separate corners and I know it is corny and cliche, and coming from an agnostic to boot, but would you think about what Jesus would do for a second?
Froo, Anniee was feeling attacked, and stating her reasons for feeling that way. Pittypat was being a jerk, implying that her legitimate (if slightly overblown, IMHO, but I’m not a Christian so what would I know) hurt feelings were mental illness of some sort.
The thing is, KaBoom is no kind of regular and Anniee has put in her time here. I’m not quite sure what she is, but she’s too damn earnest to be a troll. Be nicer to her and stick up for her once in a while, please?
Anniee, seriously, I like you, I think you are smart and I respect you. Jesus taught love and acceptance, and not to judge. That is easy to do sometimes, and really, really hard other times. But then if it were always easy, He wouldn’t have had to remind people how important it was. I get it wrong more than I get it right myself.
Seth, I’ve put in my time trying to be nice to Anniee in the past. All it gets me is attacked, except for one time very recently where she was actually responding in kind. We had a really good exchange, and I thought that her days of placing herself on a pedestal above me in terms of Christianity and politics were over, and we could be friends. I’m willing to try again, but as far as her being nasty to me, I’ll not tolerate it, nor will I tolerate it if she (or anyone else) is being nasty to a friend.
-
But like I said, I respect the hell out of you, Seth, and I will give it another shot.
-
Anniee, shall we get long?
Sadly, froo, crickets again.. so much for extending the hand of reason.
-
Anniee, what say ye?
As I said in another post, I’m keyboard challenged, so please accept my apologies for that. Dyslexic…..stupid? Maybe a bit of both. I’ll be more careful. In the meantime, read the part of Christian ethic that talks about tolerance.
) teaching to do so. Why is it that so many of you seem so ANGRY all the time?
On the other hand, I have not yet called anyone here a moron bitch or boehead turd (maybe you’re a little keyboard challenged too?) . My point was that it is NOT a part of Christian (thanks Eric
Reading all of Eric’s posts have given me pause to stop and give my views a little more thought in a number of ways. Maybe I’ve been too inflexible in my beliefs-or lack thereof. In any case, I am open to other ideas, a little more so now. That’s what being agnostic is about, eh?
On the other hand, your posts are typical of the same kind of nasty, crabby, self righteous, holier than thou, preach-one-thing-and-do-another folks who turned me against religion in the first place. I can see your god shaking his head and rolling his eyes every time you post with such mean intent. Oh…..and why drink at ALL? Nasty habit. Nothing to be proud of.
I will endeavor in the future to spell your name correctly if you promise not to call me names.
And thanks again, Eric.
Actually, going around calling people moron bitches is not very Christian of her. You have a very bigoted view of Christians, my friend.
I could easily be wrong, but I think he was pointedly using Xtian for that reason. I.e. he was refusing to call that kind of behavior Christian, because he didn’t want to tar the term.
Ah, well, if that’s the case, then I’m sorry. I just really hate it when people think that people like Anniee are representative of the entire Christian community.
That’s one of the reasons I think popularity has almost always been a very bad thing for Christianity. If professing Christianity is seen as a way to gain power/influence, or gain materially… IMO, “Power corrupts” isn’t quite as accurate as “Power attracts the corruptible.”
And the corruptible are, well… corruptible. They also tend to want and get a lot more attention than the ones who try to quietly do good.
And thus we come to the truly crippling part of the church. The church should NOT be powerful, because power DOES attract corruption. And when the church worships a man of no corruption, of no sin, and of pure love, corruption completely destroys the message. The church becomes more powerful on earth, but the message they are supposed to be delivering is now impotent. Hypocrisy and corruption have ravaged a perfectly good religion.
Outstanding post. This is exactly what I have thought all along. The organization ALWAYS, at some point in it’s evolution, become more important than the message and it’s focus then becomes nothing more than the accumulation and retention of power. At that point the message become superfluous to money and influence and is merely a tool to get more.
Hey folks….this Eric guy is OK!
Wow, I just saw this, but thanks, brak!
BTW, if anyone who has read this thread has not seen Dogma, rent it now. It’s both a hilarious send up of the church along with some extremely relevant commentary on the current state of the religion. It isn’t outright crapping on Christianity, just pointing out areas for improvement. And it’s got Jay & Silent Bob in it.
Excuse me, I’m not going to play the part of your whipping boy and your scapegoat. You do not need to drag me in to every conversation you have as a negative example, you jerk. That’s ridiculous. Stand on your own principles and ideas or STFU.
*I* hate it when people like the woman in the video become thought of as representative of Christianity in general. Did you ever think of saying THAT instead? No, of course you didn’t. Ass.
Check the nesting, he was responding to what you said previously, not “dragging you into a conversation” where you weren’t before.
-
Also, he did say what you’re asking him to say: {http://punditkitchen.com/2009/05/24/political-pictures-becky-fisher-word-christ/comment-page-1/#comment-167738}
{http://punditkitchen.com/2009/05/24/political-pictures-becky-fisher-word-christ/comment-page-1/#comment-167302}
I used YOU as an example because many things you’ve said in these comments have been very much what I’m talking about. However, when you’re right, you’re right. The Jesus Camp woman is definitely NOT what I want ANYONE to think Christians are normally like.
But again, you have come off as a very snooty Christian looking down your nose at nonbelievers and that makes me just as ill as atheists who make jokes about people of faith as being ridiculous. I know I’ve gotten my panties in a wad (they’re strictly for comfort, people, don’t judge me) over many of the religious things said here, but I have also tried to make clear my overall acceptance of people of all faiths or lack thereof. You haven’t done that. That’s why I mentioned you. Ass.
Eric, she looks down her nose at people she considers to be “less Christian” than she as well.
Which makes Jesus go *facepalm*
Amazingly-horribly-bad-taste jokes, sorry if they’re offensive:
1) When Jesus facepalms, is the result something akin to playing peekaboo?
2) WWJFP? (Actually, I think I like that one so much that I’ll have to use it to replace WWJB? on my car.)
I’m gonna have to call BS on this one. I almost NEVER talk about Christianity and certainly this might be only the second time I’ve even mentioned the scriptures on this entire board, ok? The only time **I** got bent out of shape prior was when Fister decided to label ALL Christians (but especially me) as mentally ill schizos psychos just for believing in the fairy God that we do. I didn’t see you b*tching then, though. So don’t even go there unless you can find a hell of a lot of instances of me even DISCUSSING this issue, because you can’t, Eric. You don’t like me and you want to make me your scapegoat “Well I hate it when people think of ANNIEE” and it’s nonsense. Stop it.
And also: “Let me explain it this way – you are NEVER going to have to wonder if the “kooky Christian” on the news or in the “Jesus Camp” type film is me because it’s never going to be. I don’t proselytize nor go door to door, engage in any strange rituals, or do anything in real life that anyone could consider strange. Now if we start to pursue a general strategy in this country against Christians like was done to the jews in WWII, you might see me on tv being rounded up into a cattle car, but that’s going to be as far as it goes. So find another scapegoat. This ISN’T the droid you’re looking for.
What is your definition of “proselytizing”?
You aren’t mentally ill. In fact, personally, I like you. If I didn’t like you and think you were smart, you wouldn’t have the power to annoy me like you do. I’ll try not to give you socialist cooties if you try to be a tiny bit less judgmental. You probably don’t mean to, but you kinda come across as arrogant. I’m just saying, I’d respect your religion a lot more if I saw it turn you into a nicer person.
Except that I was talking specifically about your attitude right here. Your attitude has been so preachy that even though we share the same religion, I wouldn’t dare defend your comments here, and I’ve been called the thickheaded one on here already.
No, you’re not the kooky nutjob like Jesus Camp lady, I’ll give you that. But you are the common stereotype of the holier than thou Christian.
Eric, this is an isolated conversation and you’re going to have to realize that there’s a difference between putting in my opinion when the subject simply comes up and proselytizing or being holier than thou. I don’t think I’m a better Christian than anyone (who is truly a Christian) – I’d rather, like Paul, call myself the chiefest of sinners. That doesn’t mean that I haven’t studied and wrangled with the scripture enough to speak with some actual authority on the meaning, because I have. That is what you’re seeing. I also generally have a specific purpose in mind when I engage in a topic. I’m not going to add a ton of “IMHO” and “JMO”s when I know something is true.
Seth – thank you, I didn’t realize you felt that way.
Froo – for my purposes I use it to mean that I don’t actively seek converts (though I might if I were in a location where no one had ever had a chance to hear the gospel, unlike the US where everyone has) or preach to non-Christians, except as such time they ask me genuine questions, in which case I answer as honestly and thoroughly as I can. If I feel up to it.
Well, holier-than-thou might not be your intent, but it is how you’re coming off. And I’m not the only one who thinks so. Your reputation on other subjects for being argumentative and insulting admittedly come into play here, so yeah, we’re likely to take what you say wrong no matter what your intention.
That being said, I’ll be the bigger man and say that even though I was responding to things you said above, I probably didn’t need to pick on you. I apologize for that.
Whether or not the sarcasm about using “‘IMHO’ and ‘JMO’s [sic]” was aimed at me, I’ll respond: In matters of opinion, neither you nor I has any business claiming that ours is The Truth. De gustibus non est disputandum. Recognizing one’s own opinion as NOT being The Truth is a strength, not a weakness.
Apologies, but I can’t resist… was “JMO” a Freudian Typo for “Jesus’s & My Opinion”?
“I don’t think I’m a better Christian than anyone (who is truly a Christian)”
:/ that sentence made me a bit uncomfortable.
also, Ari, JMO-Freud joke gave me quite the lulz, thanks for that ;P
Yes, tyler, I figured it would. That’s the way the cookie crumbles.
Stealth panties joke is win. ^_^
Thank you!
Thank you for the feedback. I’m very hesitant to claim any truth to my mindreading skills, and I’m glad that this time I was close to the mark.
Any Vulcan ancestry?
You’re a very angry, hateful person.
so what do you think made the overzealous antagonistic-towards-Christianity left so radicalized…
I’m pretty sure the over-zealous religious right was created first.
In the beginning God created the overzealous religious right, and they were without form and void, and darkness was upon them and they were not so deep.
And god fashioned into the left the rib which he had taken from the right, and thereafter the overzealous right can’t take a ribbing.
lol nice
That’s pretty funny actually.
In the beginning, man created god.
and then she realized she could do better
Ain’t no way to go but up!
BOO-YA!
But they weren’t doing scary things like in Jesus Camp. Not since the crusades or the catholic/protestant counter-burnings for heresy and that was a long time ago.
I think the point is that certain past siner should not be throwing stones.
Or cosiners either. Damn self-righteous geometry teachers…
… they’re always on an ego trig.
Damn Calculating bastards.
It can be hard to differentiate them though, until they say something obtuse.
Ahhh…they’ve always got an angle.
But it’s never an ugly angle, no it’s always acute one.
Let’s try not to go off on a tangent.
Well, and that minor thing about justifying slavery and the genocide of Native Americans via the teaching of more than one Christian Denomination that neither Africans nor Indians had souls. Or the forced conversion of colonized peoples to Christianity at the point of a gun or by kidnap and imprisonment in “schools” and “reservations.” Or the subjugation of half the human race to the whims of the other half simply due to their genitalia – arguing against women having the rights to property, voting, their own children for thousands of years. Or the girls in the 50s and 60s forced into “homes” and having their children taken from them for the “sin” of an out of wedlock pregnancy. Or the “anti-cult deprogramming” through kidnap and torture of people who had the audacity to chose other religions in the 60s, 70s and 80s (still going on actually despite the efforts of the alternative religions and smaller denominations to fight such tactics in court.) Um… Bosnia? The abuse of children by the Catholic and protestant priesthoods in religious schools and parishes. Also, as mentioned already, targeting doctors and clinics that provide abortion or just reproductive services to women and girls. Or the targeting of blacks and civil rights workers in the 50s and 60s in the South. Or hate crimes against homosexuals based on “religious” teachings. Or teaching that condoms make HIV spread faster? ETC.
So, you were saying again?
This all happened in a Jesus camp?
LOL! No, but the argument was made that Christians hadn’t done anything crazy between the Reformation and the Jesus Camp. Merely refuting that assertion.
Oh very acceptable, I was just going for the sarcastic literal approach to your response, just to prevent him from reaming you as he was talking about Jesus camps in particular. I understand that there are the crazies in all groups. I know there are fellow Christians out there that would do some crazy stuff in the name of God.
Heh! Yeah, there are fanatics and power-mongers in every human institution. It’s sad that we can twist something that has the power to be so up-lifting, spirituality, into a force that can cause so much destruction and hurt to people.
Usually when they realize the trouble they have caused, they will cop out and say “God/deity/w/e told me/ It was God/deity/w/e’s will”.
It’s the pendulum effect.
Haha, yeah, it’s always the people who are antagonistic against Christianity who are told to be “attacking” people, isn’t it? I find it amusing.
When I walk down the street Mormons start preaching to me, when I’m at home Jehovah’s Witnesses and other groups come knocking on my door to preach to me. And the pamphlets they give me tell me that I deserve to burn in eternal hellfire for not believing in their brand of Christianity.
And people like Fred Phelps and many other bigots tell me that I’m an abomination according to the bible, and that God almighty will force me to eat my children and friends because I’m not straight.
So, every once in a while I go online and I poke some fun on the bible verses that say stuff like that. I make some jokes, point out what I personally think is strange and twisted about Christianity. I post it on my blog and stuff, where people only have to read it if they want to and come there by their own free will. I’ve never bothered anyone in their home, I’ve never held up bigoted signs at funerals, I’ve never accosted people on the street telling them that they deserve torment.
But I’ve still been told several times that I’m the one who is intolerant. That I am the one who is attacking. For writing humor, that no one needs to pay any attention to, on the internet. Yeah, right.
Certain Family Guy quotes come to mind…
Standing ovation! Well said! Elebenty billion internetz for you!
“When I walk down the street Mormons start preaching to me, when I’m at home Jehovah’s Witnesses and other groups come knocking on my door to preach to me.”
Yeah, that’s truly obnoxious, I agree. But those are not any part of mainstream or orthodox Christianity.
“And the pamphlets they give me tell me that I deserve to burn in eternal hellfire for not believing in their brand of Christianity.”
These are part of mainstream Christianity, and they are merely trying to WARN you that you WILL burn in hell for not accepting Christ. It’s true, but it’s not something I see fit to go around proclaiming every day because everyone already knows this. There is more to it than that – there is redemption, and hope (but what would redemption and hope be without the knowledge of the lack of them?)
“And people like Fred Phelps and many other bigots tell me that I’m an abomination according to the bible, and that God almighty will force me to eat my children and friends because I’m not straight.”
This is a difficult issue – you can not, first of all, take the Phelps’ seriously – NO ONE in Christianity does. However, there IS sin and there IS redemption. Personally, I have a gay child myself – I don’t find that I can cast out my own child for any reason so it’s all going to have to be in the hands of God, isn’t it? He’s the one who saves or damns anyway – yes he has standards and I may be the arbiter as a Christian, but some things are beyond me. We shall see where it all leads. I’m sorry that these things made you reject God…or did they? Or was it that you already had? I had, when I was younger.
“Yeah, those eebil Moremenses are horrible if they do it! But if I do the exact same thing, I’m being nice.” Uehhhh?
Just curious, have you considered that 1st-century Jews probably felt the same way about you that you feel about Mormons? (Who, I’m told, prefer to be called LDS.)
I prefer LSD myself.
Better living through chemicals!
I find it’s a much better religious experience.
I took LSD and saw God. But you should really make an appointment if you’re gonna do that. I caught God on the crapper and that was really embarrassing. “Hey, can’t you knock first, a-hole?”
Monitor now drenched with coffee. Thanks for the laugh of the day, Eric! A whole new meaning for the Brown Acid.
Deliberately obtuse. Mormonism is a cult of Christianity by definition, not Christianity proper.
This, actually, isn’t true.
starrfade, I’ll offer a line of analysis that might help:
Even if we assume her statement is true, what does it have to do with the subject? I.e. “Why would the exact same behavior be obnoxious if Moremenses do it but nice if Anniee does it?”
That’s why you have to start with the first sentence. Like she says, she’s being deliberately obtuse. She considers them a cult, so as far as she’s concerned that means nothing about them can be good. Therefore, any question will be answered the same way.
It doesn’t matter whether the question is “Why are they eebil?” or “Why are you inherently superior to them?” or even “What definition of ‘cult’ are you using to call them that?” – the answer is “Moremenses are a cult.”
Never mind that first century Jews would have said the exact same thing about Anniee, i.e. that as far as they’re concerned she belongs to an illegitimate cult offshoot of their religion. They would only say that because they, like Moremenses, belong to an inferior religion. (And pretty much everyone else too.)
“These are part of mainstream Christianity, and they are merely trying to WARN you that you WILL burn in hell for not accepting Christ.”
Yes, I get that. I understand their intentions, but I still have a problem with atheists being called “attackers” in the context. Let me give you an example.
I never do this, but I’ve seen some people on the internet write about how they think religion is bad for people because it limits the mind. They try to convince people (again on the web, not by preaching to people in their homes) to give up their religion to live a fuller life. They say these things because they think that following their advice will help people. Maybe they’re wrong, maybe they’re right, but the point is that it’s their belief that religion can be bad for people and that they can help.
But when they do that, they are often called bigots and hateful. In most of society it is very much never ok to tell people that their religion is bad, even if you’re doing it with the best intentions of helping people. But at the same time I must always accept that the people who accost me in my home are just being friendly when they say that I deserve hell.
“This is a difficult issue – you can not, first of all, take the Phelps’ seriously – NO ONE in Christianity does.”
Well, there are people who take Phelps seriously. But sure, he is a big exception; very few are like him. There are however a lot of other people who love to tell me that being non-straight is the worst sin in the world and that I’m an abomination for it, and they usually have some nifty little Bible verses to go with it.
So I make a little fun of those Bible verses, just to show people that it’s absurd to hate LGBTs because of the Bible. And I’m not saying that I’m necessarily right in my interpretation of the Bible, I’m just saying that I find it amusing that I’m the one who is accused of being intolerant under the circumstances.
“I’m sorry that these things made you reject God…”
No, no, you have me very wrong here. I don’t reject God at all.
It’s just like with unicorns, Allah, Thor, Vishnu, vampires, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus and so on. I don’t reject any of those things/gods – I just have never seen any evidence for them so I don’t believe in them.
And I’m guess that you’ve never seen any evidence for the Hindu gods either, or the Norse Pagan gods, or any other god that isn’t your God. It’s easy for you to not believe in them – you don’t have to make any conscious “rejection.”
And I don’t have to make any conscious rejection of any of them either, and I just include your God in the list. I don’t reject Him, hate Him, distrust Him or long for Him, just like you probably don’t have any of those feelings about Vishnu. I just very casually don’t believe in any of the gods man have written about.
just responding to the phelps thing here — my take is that if people (fellow christians) really disagreed with phelps and his inbred clan, they’d band together to run him out of town every time he showed up, they’d be speaking against him on public media, they’d be demonstrating what their book professes and not ignoring the vileness of phelps and others like him. only when other christians from all walks of life band together and deny him and his twisted ideas, will phelps stop being a figurehead of newconservative christianity, but as long as nobody is speaking against what phelps spews, he’s going to be accepted as what christianity is all about – there needs to be some house cleaning done….
There are groups that do that very thing to the Phelps’ clan. You have to be careful, though, because those bastards have lawyers on the payroll and will sue you just as quick as you violate “their First Amendment Rights to Free Speech”. You pick your battles in those cases.
true, too true, but still it seems like there ought to be a way for the greater portion (i hope) of christians to speak out that they don’t agree with what he says and that he doesn’t speak for them. i under stand that people feel like they have too much to lose to speak against this version of a fascist, but i also feel that by standing by silently, they lose all claim to not being like him. what’s that quote?… something to the effect of silence is seen as agreement? ack, i can’t remember enough to even attempt a google to see if it would trigger more words…
so in substitute since i can remember this one:
“In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then… they came for me… And by that time there was no one left to speak up.”
~~~Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)
source: {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…}
I always loved that verse, the path of least resistance does have a dangerous allure. The best one-liner I’ve heard on it is ‘In our silence we are complicit’. Which was said about democracy and participatory government, but holds true on all sorts of things, like people dragging your religon’s name through the mud.
If you’ll excuse me, there are some atheists mocking faith over there…
You wanna hear something disgusting? Glenn Beck ET AL are now using Niemoller’s words to complain about Obama’s treatment of our bailed out banks and car companies!
when can we put them out of our misery? that is one of the dumbest things i’ve heard in some time..
He won’t burn in hell, there is always an opportunity to ask for forgiveness. The prodigal son.
your hell, you burn in it, doh!
Best response to the “you’ll burn in hell!” fraternity
Dude, seriously, its stuff like this that make “people” like Anniee451 look considerate in contrast, and in the end isn’t that the real crime?
Just saying, rise above dude, rise above.
While I obviously can’t know – I doubt the “antagonistic-towards-Christianity left” arose out of nothing.
Uh-huh. Actually, the Islamic fundamentalist movement began about 60 years ago, and has little or nothing to do with the US.
More, in point of fact, can be attributed to such whiny tomes as Edward Said’s “Orientalism”, and it’s soldi blame of everything that’s wrong in the world on America and the west. All of which, of course, is a driect outgrowth of the aforementioned self-hating western left.
But you knew that already.
snicker
Tell us more about the Islamic Fundamentalists in the ’40s, please. Who were they up in arms against? What were their tactics?
I’m serious, here, not trolling. I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to.
i’m not sure if this is what you’re referring to or not, but do some research on arabs and nazis — it’ll curl your toes at the very least….
How did I miss the part where leftists invaded your country, killed your people, wrecked your infrastructure, stole your natural resources, put you into prisons without trial, and shat on your Bible? Damn left wing media, hiding the real news stories.
And when did Christians go from being the overwhelming majority of the country to a persecuted fringe? Aren’t nearly all politicians Christians? Because a group can’t really be ‘radicalized’ if they are the majority, and the dominant social group. You aren’t the underdogs, and you don’t get to play the martyrs.
“You aren’t the underdogs, and you don’t get to play the martyrs.”
Amen. (pun intended) The majority of congress identifies as Christian. We’ve never had a president who was anything but Christian. The majority of the supreme court is Christian. You can walk into almost any store selling books in the US and be guaranteed to find the Christian bible. You can go to any city of more than a few hundred residents in the US and find a Christian church, if not your specific denomination. Government offices and schools close for all the major Christian holidays. If you’re in the hospital, you can be sure that you will have access to a Christian minister should you need one, and most likely one of your chosen denomination. If you have to go to court, witnesses will be sworn in on the Christian bible. The thought that Christians, as a group, are persecuted is complete bullshit.
The real ‘persecution’ comes from variations in Christian denominations–Catholics don’t like Protestants, Protestants don’t like Catholics. Methodists don’t like LDS, and Church of Christ, Baptist, and Mennonites don’t like anybody.
Granted, thing is there are options available to all religions. You can affirm on any book you choose when it comes to court. The closing of religious holidays, I much enjoy the days off, I also have no problem with York (Toronto, Canada) closing on jewish holidays as it is mostly a jewish full school and many Jews have made donations to it. In a reverse spectrum (I already had this argument with my friend), if our nations were not a Christian based society, majority Islamic instead. We would have their holidays off. I would still take my religious holidays off in the end. I don’t know how accepting people would be, but in Canada you are protected to take your religious days off, and to work on days that are not of your religious celebration. That includes major Christian religious days.
I offer you a spin on the day off scenario though. Summer vacation originates with the immigrants sons and daughters having to help with the house in the summer. So being that so many students already were taking everyday off from school in the summer, they created the summer vacation. So being that we are in a Christian society, most of our government workers, bankers and so on are Christian. In Canada, you are allowed to celebrate your religious celebrations. So had there been no holidays to start with, these people would have to take the day off to celebrate it anyways. Now can a bank rationally open their doors when 80% of their workforce will not be coming in? So in our current society, even if you did not have the Christian days of celebration set aside as a day off. It would be hard for the businesses to operate at with a significantly reduced workforce. Point being, when I argued with my friend about this we decided that even though the days are set aside, it is necessary to have them. Some businesses are completely comprised of Christian workers, those businesses would definitely close. When your society has a majority of some particular religion, it is almost guaranteed that that particular religion’s holidays will be set aside as days off.
*headdesk*
summer vacation had nothing to do with immigrant children haveing to clean house during the summer — it’s an agrarian thing — boys especially were let out of school in early spring to help with the planting and with midwifery if the family had more than a few animals. often the boys would go back for the last couple weeks of so of school. then school would be let out so that all the children were available to help on the farm with crops and livestock. school often didn’t start up again until fall harvest, or if it did, boys and the older girls were excused to help with the harvest. it was only with urbanization that summer break became what it is today – vacation time.
Um, we were a settler society, as in we all were immigrants, though one would argue that natives weren’t relatively taught in our schools yes. I was using immigrant children in a broader sense. Sorry about that but aside from the one word we are in agreeance on summer vacation’s history. I learned it in grade 7 so I figured I would forget some of the finer points.
You may want to research the Mennonites before you say that… I’m pretty sure they’re a far more peaceful group than you might believe.
Yeah they’re pretty much pacifists, and not just in name only. Quite a few of our local Mennonites were very outspoken against the Iraq war.
Yeah, Mennonites and Quakers are okay in my book.
Once I took an online “Faith Test” that would match your beliefs with a faith that was appropriate. The results said I’d make a good Pagan, or possibly a liberal Quaker
i can so see you as a pagan, won’t label you as bad or good because those are subjective descriptors, but yeah, you’d fit into the pagan world nicely
I’m not speaking of pacifism, I’m speaking of the fact that Mennonites do believe that their denomination is the one true path to heaven, and that all other denominations, even of Christianity, are going to burn in hell. Seriously, find one and ask them. You don’t even have to find one, I’ll send you the number of my Aunt-in-law.
My husband’s family is Mennonite. I do happen to know a thing or two about the ACTUAL functioning of this group, not just the idealized version of their religion.
Actually, that’s part of the problem. Of course Christians are the majority, and have been since the country was founded. Where the problem (for us) lies is that recently its become “uncool” to even mention the fact that you’re a Christian, especially if you’re in a place of authority. If you’re president, say, and you have a real relationship with your Lord, now you’re just a nut job with an invisible sky daddy who tells you what to do. Our way of thinking isn’t “right”, so we’re considered a fringe and idiots.
-
I know I’m slipping into a fallacy of tradition here, but it seems odd that a mainstream religion that has been used for so long by so many people would suddenly be out of date and ripe for ridicule. So yes, we are a persecuted majority, and it makes it worse to have recently been the way to be and then suddenly be thought of as non-kosher (pardon the mixing of religions).
Does it honestly feel ‘uncool’ to be Christian?
Hey frou, you’re the coolest of cool. Along with eddie, and let’s see, Purple Switch! Of the cloth and too too cool. I’m being silly here but I mean it.
Awesomesauce! I never get to hang with the cool… adults I guess.
On topic – all beliefs should be ‘ripe for ridicule’. Placing something above mockery is the first step toward placing it beyond question or doubt.
Hey PS, my apologies – I had you confused with that wonderful Aussie minister who hasn’t been around in awhile – I’ve forgotten his name – you remind me very much of him.
You’re never going to offend me by calling me cool.
Though I’m kind of worried that I remind you of a minister. I’m about as far from Christianity as it goes, at least as I understand it.
Well you’re both smart, thoughtful smartasses who like to question everything. I love hanging out with the clergy, at least the ones I’ve met in New York. But then again, most of them have acknowledged being agnostic. Something about the base of faith being doubt …
That was OhmyGoodness: I think he was busy moving house or something…
Thanks AC – I bet he’s lurking. Come back OMG!
Oh and AC? You’re cool too, in my book, but I know my book aint all that much. And neither is being cool.
Of course the Queen of Puns knows all about being cool!
Yeah, I liked him bunches, he was a laugh riot.
Thanks pittypat!
Natch Pscetti!
Well, I’m uncool because I’m a “bible-basher.” i.e. someone who is Christian before they are Protestant or Catholic. Here in Scotland some people buy into the Protestant/Catholic labels just to forge themselves an identity in a piece of archaic racial/political bigotry and people who’d describe themselves as Christians, read the bible, understand it and go to church are sadly thin on the ground. In my school of 1200 I could probably count on my two hands the number of people who’ve “come out” (yep, “come out”) about their faith. And -more so when I was younger and shyer and worried more- it feels very very uncool.
I’m sorry. If anything I’ve written has offended you as a Christian, I apologize. You and froofrou both: sometimes I don’t choose my words very well and I let my angry side out and I’m not proud of it.
It is very, very cool to choose and pursue a genuine spiritual path. Anyone who is cool knows that, it was like the first thing they taught us in cool school.
Seth, for all of your challenges to me about making sure I can stand up for my faith, I have never taken anything you said to heart or been offended by it. I honestly thought when I started talking with you that having this type of deep conversation about religion with an agnostic such as yourself would cause me to question my own faith, perhaps losing it in the process. Rather, it has strengthened my faith and given me the ability to look at things from a completely different point of view. I truly thank you for that!
And don’t you remember the first rule of cool school? You do not talk about cool school……. 
-
So you and I, we’re cool
Not to put to fine a point on it, but that is the best thing I could ever have heard from anyone. We are all looking at the same thing, we just have different words for it. The truth will be strengthened by talking about it, and the ignorance diminished. Every great tradition says something along those lines.
Cool School:
1. You do not talk about cool school.
2. Everybody in cool school has a passion.
3. Don’t ever care what anyone else thinks of you, unless you’ve chosen to respect them.
It’s only because of rule 3 that I can mention rules 1 and 2.
Honestly no, not at all. There’s no need to apologise: you never said anything offensive or unfair and it speaks volumes that you were concerned enough to check.
Yes it does. The problem is that everyone assumes that being the majority of anything makes you automatically immune from persecution, but the treatment of mainstream Christians and the subsequent watering down of the belief system is hard to take. I realize that there is a natural evolution with religion just as there is with other thngs, but the advent of things like the Internet and other ways is making communication Instantainious have caused this particular erosion to happen quicker than normal.
-
And think of how Bush was treated and denigrated by the “mainstream” when be referred to his religion. It’s completely uncool to be christian in this day and age.
From what I saw of the election, it’s cool to indulge in feel-good sayings and generally approve the odd Christian moral or be traditional about things but as for meaning it…
Agreed. I once heard of an occasion where Bush professed to have been involved in a Bible study of the book of James, but couldn’t actually remember any specific lessons or verses when asked. It’s too bad; I would have been interested in hearing what he thought about 5:1-5.
Sorry Froo, but here I disagree with you: Bush’s version of Christianity was very much the same kind as Annie’s, imo: superficial, thoughtless, violent, and intolerant.
I agree with Portland Mark – a person’s religion should be a private affair, and has no place in a presidential election. With that said, with regard to it being “uncool” to be Christian, name one presidential candidate who could win an election if they said they were athiest. And anyway, Bush’s actions were anything but Christian. He is a war monger. Not exactly Christ-like.
Around here, yeah! But otherwise, no.
Yes, Seth, it does feel “uncool” to be Christian. Hell, despite how I’ve been going on about it on here, I actually tend to wince when people start talking about it. A lot of it is because I don’t want anyone shoving their brand of Christianity down my throat when I have my brand that’s working for me. There’s also the liberal in me who doesn’t think people should be shoving their beliefs down anybody’s throats at all. And finally, religious discussions almost always blow up. Kinda like here. Usually if I’m asked if I’m a Christian, I’ll say yes and leave it at that.
Oh noes, end the apartheid! Stop persecuting the oppressed majority by trying to enforce your religious viewpoints on them! No more passing laws forcing them to have abortions and making them get married to gay people!
And especially no more cruelly calling them “uncool!” After all, isn’t the point of Christianity to be cool, rich, fashionable, and popular in this life?
Please be nice to froofrou, she’s a very nice and intelligent person. Nobody should feel badly about their choice of spiritual path, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone else because of it.
That is why it’s worth holding up a mirror via reductio ad absurdum. An intelligent person may profit from criticism if it shows them that their words contradict their true goals (which for the record I believe are highly admirable).
I don’t know. IME, froo is right. Okay, maybe persecution is a strong word…well, not always though. But Christianity could certainly use some good PR these days.
Just my 0.02 dollars… but popularity has almost always weakened Christianity, and real persecution has almost always strengthened it. I have to go to work or I’d try to find a more cogent explanation, but one that comes to mind is that it’s when times are bad that you find out who your truest friends are.
You know, I think you may have a point there.
If they quit embarrassing themselves, the problem would take care of itself. Oh, wait, so I guess they DO need a PR guy…
No, the bad publicity they’ve gotten, the lack of respect, the bad reputation – they EARNED that.
I love how christians consider the mildest of criticism aimed their way to somehow constitute ‘persecution’. I have news for them – being regarded with an attitude of well-deserved contempt may be unpleasant, but it is NOT persecution.
Want to change the attitudes? Stop being jerks and keep your religion to yourselves and out of our laws.
Once again, some bad eggs have ruined Christianity for everyone. Do you really think all of us are just waiting in hiding for a chance to shove our bible up your ass? The problem is, the nutjobs are the ones who end up in the news, not the normal Christians. No, Christianity does NOT deserve contempt. Certain people within it do, but it’s not fair to slam the entire religion like that.
Froo, I could not have said it any better myself. Wow. I am *impressed*, and I’m not being sarcastic.
And you didn’t even cite one source! (Ok, NOW I am!)
What some of the people who want to bash all people of faith need to realize, there are people who claim thier ideals that are evil as turds too. Often imposters hiding behind those ideals like a wolf in the fold. How many pedophiles become teachers or scout masters? Maybe not always to that extreme, but they are there. Such as that teacher (I forget her name, that had 2 kids with and is married too what was her 6th grade student)
The America I love is dying. It’s a crime to not be what the media says you should be. Not free to pursue happiness, so long as you don’t interfere on others.
And as far as the JW’s and LSD’s and such street preaching and door knocking, what about the tree huggers screaming “Prius! Prius!” at every SUV they see? I drive a full size van because I have 5 kids, and we don’t fit in the usual minivan. And sometimes that means it is empty as I am cruising the parking lot looking for a space while the wife is shopping. And with 5 kids and being self employed, NO ONE looks for more ways to save on utilities.
When I encounter above door knockers and such, I make them try to show me what they are doing in the Bible. And I usually send them away with a stunned look on their face. Some of them mean well, just remember that.
@Justa – the teacher that had 2 kids with her former student was Mary Kay LaTourneau, a very very sick woman.
And speaking of JW’s and LDS’ that come calling – I know people who do just what you advocate – ask them to defend their views in light of other information to the contrary. Politely, of course. Or there’s the tack my husband would take – answer the door in your underwear.
It could be worse… at least he answers the door in his underwear. ^_~
@froofrou – as a card carrying minority who is also not, nor ever was christian – i could care less what faith a person holds to as long as they also support the greater good of society, etc, and don’t attack me for my belief structure, tell my children they will burn in hell because we’re not christians, use their book of rules as the sole explanation for anything and everything, etc. it isn’t the belief structure/brand of faith that people don’t care for – it’s the spin that the evangelicals have put on christianity and removed what actually made your religion a healing one instead of a warrior faith.
and another point that is one of my pet peeves is the need for christians to prey for me to find christ and convert… what the heck is up with that — i don’t tell someone i’m going to do a ritual or cast a spell, or whatever, so that they’ll start worshiping some other god/goddess, or any other such invasion of their belief structure. i’m all for discussions and comparisons of faiths until i’m told mine is wrong and that i’m an evil person, etc…. if you (generic) are looking for converts, threats aren’t beneficial, and if someone doesn’t express an interest – gee whiz, move on to greener pastures, not get louder and more aggressive…. after all, that smacks of forced conversion, and while that might (did actually) work during the middle ages, isn’t it time for the more self-righteous elements to grow up a bit and worry more about the plank in their eye instead of the splinter in mine or anyone else’s.
***only chastising the loud-mouthed, pushy, arrogant, my way or else, type christians here, not those who understand that different strokes for different folks take us all to the same place in the end. after all isn’t it the trip to perfection and becoming closer to the divine the purpose, and not the path that gets us all there?
and just for you frou: walk in the light and be at peace
The light! It burns!!!! It burns!!!!!
What the heck is up with this web site? There is something special about it, I can’t put my finger on it, but it is like that old nursery rhyme (assuming PK is the little girl):
There was a little girl
Who had a little curl
Right in the middle of her forehead
And when she was good
She was very, very good.
But when she was bad she was horrid.
Here’s to diamond mining in the sewers of the Internet!
hey now, i resemble that little girl
!
You came here during the month I was all into a work project, bad faerie. Damn slow hidebound state government, sapping all my will to do good things, now I’m reading and posting here again. Ah well, what can you do? And by that I mean, I like you, bad faerie. You remind me of this hot little sixty something who was dying of cancer that I had a five way with in Hawaii. Uh, TMI?
Never! I just can’t get past my silly inhibitions and body issue long enough to give hubby that particular fantasy, so I live vicariously
Hehe, I’m posting this as my best friend screws the heck out of my wife in the next room. Our little three way is like that poem too. Tonight it’s nice. Sometimes it’s really difficult.
This is the first time I have been the partner and not the new addition in a MMF three way relationship. I’ve known about NRE (New Relationship Energy) for a long time, but it is different seeing it from that perspective.
I like that you think about giving hubby the FFM fantasy! It is really an ego boost for guys, more so than for girls. In fact, I’ve found most girls just get overwhelmed in an MMF situation. If you ever want to go through with it, set ground rules ahead of time. Limitations on what he and she can do together. And set a safe word that functions as a shut off, if things get weird and you just want it to stop for the evening, say ‘orange’ or something. But no on again off again the first time, your safe word shuts it down completely, and the three of you have a protocol (me and my husband talk it out, then we talk with you, or whatever you decide.)
And just to clarify (as with all sins) it isn’t adultery if no one feels hurt by it. IMHO, obviously.
speaking as someone who was on the wrong side of things that go bad in a relationship – listen to seth – he speaks the truth on laying out guidelines ahead of time. and on top of his suggestions, here’s another: never, ever engage in something without your partner being fully aware before hand, each and every time! just because it was ok last week, doesn’t mean it’s okay today if you don’t discuss it first. it’s still going behind someones back which does come awfully close to cheating. and screen, screen, screen first. . . just my opinion based on life survived….
The problem with straight MF relationships is all the Hollywood baggage, all the stories we have about how MF relationships should go down. Everyone who has been part of an alternative relationship knows you have to negotiate everything, there are no scripts for you to follow. That’s probably why I choose to be alternative. I hate following scripts.
give me a script and the first thing i do is botch the lines, then depending on how strong coyote is that day, i’ll either ignore all directions, or do the opposite… i might play well with others, but i run with scissors too
i had the typical wasp marriage right down to the divorce — we didn’ agree on much there the last few years… he wanted a bimbo on the side and i felt that after a couple decades it was a little late to announce the change in rules after he’d already changed the game play…. it’s what you get for marrying the only son of an evangelical southern baptist minister and expecting them to live up to the ideals they hold everyone else to…. while it’s possible to change horses mid-stream, both you and the horses must be in agreement or at least one goes under….
but seriously, i lost all respect for him the day he broke his solomn vows he made to his god, in his christian church….
I find my own lion-ish personality would preclude letting another rooster in the hen house, despite how lovely Lynn would look between a sexual rock and a hard place.
Luckily, while she likes that idea, she much prefers the idea of having another girl present as she technically is a switch but lacks any urge to try and dominate me, which is good because I wouldn’t have it anyway. Just not my thing. She has her dominating urges towards other women. Rather cute when you see how much of a kitten she is normally.
I have to agree with Seth, Adultery is in the lie and deception.
In the end, what Seth describes is way too free wheeling for me. I have too many … Let’s just go with mental issues to enjoy what all could happen.
Well, there is that verse in Paul’s writings that says something along the lines of the marriage bed not being defiled. Many people have interpreted this as meaning that if you’re married, go to it! Bondage, S&M, bringing in the orgies, just go for it! I’m all about that definition, as long as everyone is cool with it. I am in complete agreement about the adultery being in the lie and deception.
@seth: got pics?
but lol, the only time i’m a hot anything is when the power surges hit and there isn’t an electric fan handy
but sixty something is close enough to tickle my funny bone for some reason….
and to be honest, i’d lurked for a long time before jumping in – had to get the layout of the land so to speak, wanted to see who was reasonable and who were/are trolls and how much thought it would take to stomp a few…
and i am a wicked old hag who likes to pop over inflated egos, ask questions, demand explanations, annoy the annoyable, and generally make a pain of myself while expanding my consciousness and hopefully get someone else to think outside their self-imposed boi
Well you sound very much like me, then. Stir it up! My friend in Hawaii and I were part of a very special little polyamory group called Pali Paths. She came down with cancer and decided that she was going to do all the things she had wanted to do, but never done, before she died.
The cancer wasn’t the hard part. The hard part was that after we had gotten to know and love her, and have hot sex with her even though she was sixty something and had obvious cancerous growths, her aorta split.
We were faced with a dilemma. Operate on the aorta, and not only would it spread the cancer, but her last few months would be agonizing. Don’t operate, and she would be in mild to moderate pain, and liable to kick it at any moment.
On her behest, I called my cousin the hospice nurse (and member of the Hemlock Society) and asked her, given these medications and dosages, what would she need to do to, you know, cash it in?
My cousin, bless her heart, gave us a medical and a physical option. Enough blood thinners and opiates would do the trick. Or, we could hold her back up, suspended over a hard surface, and let her fall backwards. Her aorta would rupture, and she would pass almost immediately without pain.
Just knowing that, and having a group of loving people watching over her, she was able to pass naturally, feeling in control and loved the whole time. It is one of the parts of my life of which I am most proud.
That experience really helps now that my mom has cancer. Hehe, I’m kicking mom’s ass, telling her to eat her vegetables and get back to work. I don’t see any lumps! Are you a cancer survivor or a cancer victim? Yeah? Well get back to work then!
And one last thing, if you have to help a loved one through something like cancer, good pain management is the key. Nerve blocks are the way to go these days.
i’m sorry about your friend, that’s a hard way to go.
when my mom was diagnosed with cancer she was give a choice – 6 months of pain and misery from chemo & radiation, or 6 months of quality. she chose the quality and made nearly a year. luckily for her, her tolerance to any meds was so low that half a baby asprin put her to sleep for hours and then towards the end, we added benydryl. it wans’t until she lapsed into a coma-like state the last few days that the hospice nurse broke open the morphine.
me, i’ve already cleared it with my oldest that if i am trapped in a vegitative body, i want out and if my mind is shot (more likely) that when she and her sisters are ready, let me go one way or another. i know what my future probably holds for me health-wise and it isn’t pretty, and that’s without even taking into consideration any chance of cancers….
Egad, that was my mother’s poem for me, growing up (I have very curly hair). I don’t think I can read it in the same light again. LOL
embrace your inner pan, makes it all more delightful
sorry, i’ll put down the magnifying lens now
something odd just struck me — why doesn’t/hasn’t any of the christians here asked us non-christians what we believe in – what our moral compass is since many don’t have a big book of rules?
is it because you’re (generic) so caught up in defending your right to bludgeon others with how horrible they are for not being ‘perfect’ christians?
or is it because since we aren’t christian, our beliefs are worthless?
just an odd thought is all….
I’m guessing that, at least for some of them, our beliefs are our business.
I have several Christian friends who subscribe to the “deeds over religion” mindset. That is, as long as you’re a decent person, you get into heaven regardless of religion. If you’re a right bastard, then you get the shaft even if you pray to Jesus every day.
Maybe it’s because of the rather liberal metropolitan area I live in, but most religious types here are very tolerant and accepting. Very few fire-and-brimstone types, percentage-wise.
Personally, I belong to a diminishing yet colourful faith that doesn’t take itself too seriously, or its mythos literally. It’s also one of those that forbids proselytizing and conversion, because “each of us must find the path that is best for us.” I really don’t concern myself with others’ faiths except as a matter of curiosity… unless they’re screaming, violent fundie types, of course.
actually, no one can go to heaven unless they are saved, no matter what good deeds they have done. and All Christians will go to heaven, but not all of them will have rewards.
Wait…what? There’s a rewards program? Nobody told me there’s a rewards program.
Well, see, that’s YOUR interpretation and beliefs.
Some of the Gnostics, deists, and more “casual” Christians don’t necessarily believe that. They have a more Buddhist approach to it.
And I thought heaven WAS the reward? If all Christians go to heaven no matter what, that means Hitler and everyone who has ever murdered in the name of God gets in, but Ghandi doesn’t. I’m sorry, but that’s not exactly justice.
If you’re in a place of authority in a country with freedom of religion, it is exactly at that time you have to become *more* careful regarding how you handle statements of belief. You need to balance your secular authority with your obligation to the rights of those “under” you.
Being considered “uncool” is a far cry from being persecuted. If the world is a fallen place, why would Christians want to be considered “cool” anyway? It amazes me how many Christians get bent out of shape because they think that people don’t *like* them. Really? Is being *liked* what Jesus was concerned with?
Honestly, I was Catholic until just a few years ago, and I never once felt like I was being persecuted. All I felt was that the world was waking up to diversity. This is in the same vein as “there were no gays/pedophiles/etc. 200 years ago”; there were, it just wasn’t as well publicized.
I feel that with the advent of modern technology, Christianity is just under more scrutiny. It is no longer on a pedestal, and people like you (not meant in a derogatory manner), who feel “uncool,” are just not used to not being the sacred, un-criticisable monument that you once were. Christianity far from being persecuted… there haven’t been any Christian-hate-bashings (like gay bashings), or rude remarks spray-painted on houses. IMO, it’s just people waking up.
No Christian Hate Bashings? Where do you live, and can I come there?
I doubt you’d like it here in Massachusetts. We try to be tolerant to everyone, not just gays.
Well, everyone but Yankees fans.
But, seriously, when has a Christian man or woman in America been cornered by a gang of men, late at night, and beaten to death because of what they believe?
I can’t get you an exact match on the circumstances, because every hate crime is different. I can, however, point you to targeted crimes on Christians: {http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=45077}
{http://copycateffect.blogspot.com/2009/03/ch-list.html}
Hate crimes are all around us, even when they’re not called that.
I see, and I stand corrected. There have been hate crimes. That second site fails to mention that some of those shootings were Christian-on-Christian, like the Knoxville shooting (it was a UU church shot up by a radical evangelical), however.
At this point, then, I would ask when these crimes become persecution, and not just random hate crimes. By my understanding, persecution is performed by a majority upon a minority, where these would be classified as American terrorism.
Yeah, you did-you’re writing about, in point of fact, the ottoman Empire, which occupid the Middle East for centuries, and played a much greater role in forming the present “character of the Middle East and her denizens than ANY western country-much less the US, which has only been there less than 20 years.
Hint: check out such vacation spots as the Balkans, Lebanon, Greece, etc, all of which were occupied by the Ottomans for centuries.
Why do I never hear a word against the Turks? Is it possible that *gasp* the left is ignorant of the relevant historical, sociological and religious facts and is acting solely on the basis of immature appeals to emotional, Christian based self-hatred?
Nyah…..
I thought there was something about a mote and a beam, but maybe I’m misremembering things.
I’d never go vacationing near Turkey. I’m afraid I’d get locked up in a prison for 20 years.
You know, not everyone left-leaning is antagonistic towards Christianity. If they were, there wouldn’t be so many of them holding membership in Christian churches.
Jesus was a die-hard socialist, if you carefully examine what he actually said versus what preachers “interpret” out of his words. But saying that too loud is liable to get you crucified. Kinda like it did him.
No, just made fun of for misreading Karl Marx.
What part Of Marx’s writings did he misread, Dhoti?
The part about his guardian Engels?
Nice pun. I’ve spent half an hour trying to think of a followup, but I have to admit I’m out-classed.
Well after all that labor I think it’s time to party!
Given your userpic, should I bring Czechs mix? or Mao mix? (Weak, I know.)
Specifically, it is zee mao tse tung that I most releesh!
Your wish is my command. I’ll even set out the nice silver and the Lenin tablecloths.
Kai-shek and see if they have any Meow Sea Tuna down at the corner store?
The transition from capitalism to the ideal classless, stateless society, and his interpretation of communism. (Strictly speaking, communism might be the ideal Christian society, but Marx’s version ain’t it.)
As much as I detest the overtones inherent in “Jesus was a community organizer”, the message isn’t too far off.
Jesus misread Karl Marx? =/ If anything, it would be the other way around – Jesus’ words predate Marx by a year or two.
A few years?! Groucho was born in 1890!
It was meant to be light sarcasm, but I’m often told my humor is too oblique.
moi aussi apparemment
Je ne parle pas Francais. Est-que tu pouvais il ecrire dans Anglais?
Desolee! Somehow I feel compelled to write in French when I want to convey that I have indeed raised one eyebrow.
It’s the outrageous acCENT that warrents a raised eyebrow, vraiment?
“warrants”
Sorry, it was bugging me. Good point, otherwise!!
Careful with those pronouns…
Thanks, Frood. I am quite surprised how often people I expect to be leaning heavily to the right are either squarely down the middle or left of center. I am doing my best to walk down the middle of the road with the congregation I’ve been serving for a few months, but I suspect we are a lot more alike than I think. Still uncool the lot of us, but you can’t have everything.
I still don’t get how being Christian is suddenly “uncool.” I mean, if you don’t belong to the Christian Council in my old high school, you’re basically a social outcast and unpopular.
My sister lives in Arkansas, and on visits to see her, I’ve been refused service at restaurants & Wal-Mart (big loss there *eyeroll*) when I was a little generic Neo-Pagan wearing decidedly non-Christian jewelry or having books on the subject in my hand.
yes, there is no more oppressed group in history of the US than christians. especially now. just look, theres a handful of jews and even a muslim serving as representatives and senators. i even heard theres a jew on the supreme court! pretty soon christians will only hold 98% of the reigns of power instead of 99% then who knows what will happen!
but the only thing that can save us puny liberals from the islam suicide bombers are christian-right suicide bombers
/flex
Am I dumb for not knowing who this is?
Can’t be, ’cause then I’d be dumb, too, and that’s just impossible.
check out “Jesus Camp” on youtube…creepy stuff!
i had no idea who this lady was either until someone up top made a Jesus Camp reference.. then it all came together.
Hehe… religion.
Ba-a-a-a-a. *chews grass*
So how do atheists, (of which I presume you are one based on the baaa-ing), explain things like apparently miraculous cures? We’ve all seen plenty of fakes, but the real thing happens too, all the time really. I’ve heard a lot of people explain them psychologically, as just a super-manifestation of the placebo effect if you will. But that doesn’t explain the stories I’ve heard, some of them from people I trust who experienced the events personally, where babies with long-standing health problems are anointed with oil and prayed over as the Bible suggests are are healed almost immediately. So far as I know, placebos don’t work on babies, they aren’t intelligent enough yet to understand what is going on.
There are also plenty of children and adults with on going health issues who never get anointed with oil or prayed over yet still experience spontaneous remissions.
Maybe so. But all the same – if some child has experienced a problem for months, then gets prayed over and is better the next day, you’re going to chalk that up to coincidence of timing? I suppose I’ll never be able to prove you wrong, but sheesh.
Hehe, actually recent studies showed that, statistically speaking, prayer is detrimental to your odds.
Thing is, if faith is suppose to be something done in the absence of proof, then why are you trying to give a justification for faith? Shouldn’t Faith be something you should be able to hold onto, despite the facts?
And in answer to your question, maybe the kids zodiac table was in the correct alignment that day, or maybe his karma had paid off, or maybe the flying spaghetti monster enjoyed a macaroni drawing the kid had made and decided to let him live.
Or heck, maybe the devil did it just to screw with people.
And heck, does that mean god only cares about children when people pray for them? If they’re orphans then god says fu.ck em? Or that God demands a quota before he does something good for people?
And what about those who people pray for and yet die? Were they praying wrong? Or if its all part of gods plan and pray was pointless in that particular incidence, then wouldn’t it always be pointless as no matter what you do, God has his own plans so you better just suck it?
No, I don’t think faith is something you hold onto against reason because it gives you some psychological plus, which is what the majority of people here seem to think. Christianity either is true, or isn’t. The events recorded in the Gospels either happened, or didn’t. I think the evidence that Christianity is objectively true is quite high. There are books written on this subject, and I’m not going to write you one here – but suffice it to say that if you abandon all metaphysical prejudices (like a belief that miracles can’t occur, for example), and look at the historical record as objectively as you can, you would conclude that there is actually a great likelihood that the events in the New Testament occurred as recorded. That is, the evidence for them is stronger than many other historical events of that age that are believed in by mainstream historians. The reasons mainstream historians are more skeptical of Christianity is just because of the miraculous and moral claims the Bible makes – they’re letting their philosophy drive their conclusions rather than the other way around, in other words.
I think you’ve lumped faith in with religion.
If you look at the historical record and the objective fact the bible doesn’t hold up well, nor dose any other religion. In fact, atheism holds up pretty badly as well.
And how do you know that god didn’t just make the bible up? as a test to man, or as part of his master plan?
Or how do you know that the people who wrote the bible weren’t mistaken in their understanding of gods works? Isn’t the whole point of the bible is that god is incomprehensible?
Or maybe the devil wrote the bible, so as to trick man away from gods true path, that god created the universe billions of years ago.
Also, are you kosher, or is the bible something you simply pick and chose from?
You ask many questions. As I stated above, I think the Bible does hold up well objectively. If I wasn’t clear, take it from Richard Purtill in “Thinking About Religion”:
“It is sometimes claimed that historians simply as historians regard Old and New Testament history as unreliable on some independent historical grounds. But… many events which are regarded as firmly established historically have far less documentary evidence than many biblical events, and the documents on which historians rely for much secular history are written much longer after the event than many records of biblical events. Furthermore, we have many more copies of biblical narratives than of secular histories; and the surviving copies are much earlier than those on which our evidence for secular history is based. If the biblical narratives did not contain accounts of miraculous events or have reference to God, angels, etc., biblical history would probably be regarded as much more firmly established that most of the history of, say, classical Greece and Rome.”
And if you believe that the gospels record true, historical events, I think you’ve gone far toward answering the rest of your questions too.
And the written religions of the east out date both the secular and religious documents of the west, does that mean you believe in dragons?
Also, how dose something being old prove that its true? Or do you still believe that the earth is flat and the sun revolves around it?
And, can you give me a source in favor of religion that was written by some one impartial?
Also, you haven’t answered my question, are you kosher?
It isn’t being old that he is praising, it’s that the history was written shortly after the events it records, as opposed to a long time afterwards. (That makes it older.) The history is more likely to be accurate if it is written soon after the events occur, in other words.
As for impartial sources – you can understand that if historical research convinces you that the Bible is accurate, you’ll probably become a Christian. You may have been doing impartial research at the time, (Lee Strobel is rather famous in this regard as someone who set out to disprove Christianity and then became a Christian, but I really don’t like his writing style), but I don’t think you would call them “impartial” afterwards.
And a point I’m trying to make is that you assume an accuracy with this old information because it’s, as you put it, written shortly after the events. yet I can get you a pile of equally old papers, written shortly after the events, that contradict your papers.
If you want I can even get you cave man drawings that show a distinct lack of angels and dinosaurs.
And as you haven’t answered my question I’ll answer it for you, you’re not kosher. Meaning that you’ve decided against a passage in the bible, one of the old ones in fact. You’ve looked upon the passage not as fact but as a guide, which you’ve chosen not to follow.
And while God had very thorough laws regarding all sorts of things when he carried his message through the nation of Israel, I don’t think the Church is bound by all those same laws. A theologian could give you a better answer, but there are plenty of indications in the New Testament that we are no longer bound by the food laws. Acts 10 records a vision Peter had telling him to eat animals he considered unclean (he, being a good Jew, was horrified.) Paul in 1st Timothy writes that “For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”
So you think the bible is flexible, even with in its own cannon?
david, why do you quote your bible at people as proof of something? i;m not a christian, those words mean nothing to me as an argument for believing in your book. ok, not what you are saying specifically here, but in general, why do people quote their belief set as reason that the rest of us should think the same way? i could quote the tao of pooh or the te of piglet and then expect the same results, but would those quotes convince you to change your belief structure? to me that concept just smacks of shallowness and lack of respect for others…
BF, maybe because that’s what they’re DISCUSSING? What the hell is wrong with you? I think the words make you uncomfortable.
David, if you want to use miracles you’re going to have to back it up with a real, verifiable miracle. They don’t happen all the time at all, they are extremely rare events. I believe you’re confusing Providence with the miraculous.
By the way, a truly miraculous healing is complete, permanent, and instantaneous. It encompasses things like actual paralysis, withered limbs, blindness, deafness, etc – not vague symptoms. There have been miracles that God sovereignly accomplishes from time to rare time, but there are no people with miracle-working power such as charlatans like Popoff or Hinn.
@annie with hir head up hir fannie (i’ve asked you nicely before to use my name, evidientally you don’t understand nice?) what the hell is wrong with you? did your bejeesus buddy run away again and you can’ find him? try following his teachings as they are written in your book of rules and maybe he’ll let you find him again.
as for being afraid of words…. only when backed up by an ugly drunk with no brains, but a big mouth.
and i was asking questions of someone else, maybe a bit snarky which was unintentional, but then if david has a problem with my snark, i’ll apologize to him – so what the hell is wrong with you – elastic in your troll underwear a bit too tight too tight and cutting off the blood supply to your brain? and don’t think so much about others, reflect more about why you act so hostile to anyone who doesn’t think like you do, or is that to much to ask of someone who uses the language you do? so what the hell is wrong with you?
OK, it is fair to say that there’s a good body of evidence that there lived a man named jesus, who was followed by many israelites, seen by some as a messiah (perhaps willingly, perhaps not so), ticked off the romans and was executed. To say that there is a great deal of support for biblical history is misleading. There is a great deal of support for the broad outlines of the events described in detail in the gospels. Those accounts, however, as religous text written specifically for prolestizing are inherently suspect as source data.
Meh, quit being a jerk. There is a good point to be made here about the conflation of ‘events’ and ‘biblical description of events’.
Faith is another issue however. While there are all sorts of definitions running about, I like to stay grounded in common-use, so that people have some idea what I’m on about. And by common-use definition, faith means exactly a conviction in the rightness of something regardless of evidence for or against. It is based on trust, in a person or idea, and not on verifiable fact. I’ve got nothing against faith, or a lack of it, but it bugs me endlessly when people redefine things because they don’t like how it sounds otherwise.
its been pretty well established that the book named mark was written first long after jesus died and by someone that never even knew jesus. then the authors of luke and matthew used mark as the basis for their versions of “the truth” correcting mark’s mistakes along the way and reinterpreting what they thought was jesus’s message. then john is much later and has a whole different take on the stories. also there were dozens of other gospels that tell dozens of other versions of jesus’s life offering more contradictions, stories, and different interpretations.
jesus was probably a real person, but the gospels are not accurate history of his life in any way. they cant even agree on how he went to his death and what he said on the cross. of all things youd think theyd get that the same.
as far as the bible being accurate history, the garden of eden, noah, et al. are fairy tales. also the exodus never happened, the conquest of canaan never happened, and on it goes until you get closer in time to when the old testament was being written down and edited. then it becomes reliable.
Mark was probably written sometime between 60 and 80AD, and named for the disciple. It was created to set down the (to that point) oral early christian history. It’s likely that Luke and Matthew drew upon external sources as well as Mark, to what degree is debatable but it’s a stretch to say Mark was definitely their ‘basis’ without further debate.
You can look at the style, vocabulary and assumptions of the author of Mark (for example, what he does and does not feel it necessary to explain), and it seems to come from a coherent and belivable background. You can also look at suporting histories (eg. Heroditus) and see that the core of the jesus story has some external backing.
All the detail is highly debatable for exactly the reasons you mention, above and beyond the fact that most of it was explicitly created as propaganda to spread the word. But the core of the gospels at least does have some strong arguments to back it.
I find it interesting that the earliest versions of Mark don’t mention the Resurrection. They end with “And when they opened the tomb, it was empty.” If they were written around AD 60, then that would be only 22 years or so after the Crucifixion; it almost seems, to me, like they were paving the way not for the Second Coming as we know it, but the literal return of a Jesus who had survived the crucifixion. See Baigent, Leigh, and Lincoln, “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”. The book is full of a lot of baloney, but it has some real thought provoking information as well.
The way I learned it was that Jesus had not, in fact *survived* the crucifixion as He had transcended it. There was no physical way He (as a man) could have moved the stone to get out (if He had survived), there were soldiers posted completely around the tomb because He had been saying that He would rise after three days, and the Pharisees wanted to prevent a grave robbery that would indicate that, and there was no back way out of the tomb. That’s how we learned it, anyway.
-
As far as the timing goes, 22 years after the death is still pretty close, as far as legend-telling and making a god goes. Even the earliest stories of Alexander the Great were several hundred years after the fact, if I’m remembering my history correctly.
Yep, Mark doesn’t cover it, but most mainstream Christology will argue that what came out of the cave was Christ as God, hence the miraculous departure. That whole field is such a massive mess, though, that it’s hard to make any kind of statement about it without having dozens of exceptions hanging out everywhere.
60 is a little early. Most mainstram theories gun for mid to late 70’s, but there are some respected arguments that suggest mid 60’s or so, or that parts were written in one place at one time and others later elsewhere. 60-80 is covering all the bases, more than anything else. In either case, it’s pretty rapid. How far that’s a reflection of a culture and people looking for a messiah and how far it’s due to something exceptional happening is very debateable.
I can’t remember the timing of the other books, but I do know that the book of John was written while he was on the Isle of Patmos, around or before 80AD-ish. I remember hearing that Mark was first, though, and the exegesis on that is that each book was written for a different audience, hence the slight differences in detail. The main stuff is the same though.
John’s date is really unclear, mostly because it comes from a very different background than the rest and is harder to place in relation to them. Also because it’s fairly clear that it was worked on over a longer timescale than the others. Whether it was written by John (the disciple), or named for him in honour of his teachings that inspired it is uncertain.
I’ve only really studied Mark, but Luke and Matthew definitely come after, in uncertain order. Likely Luke first, but we’ll probably never really know.
We (as in my sis and I) always heard it was Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John, in that order. Then Luke went on to pen the Book of Acts, and then Paul took over. Or something like that.
Well, it’s not really known if the gospels were written by the disciples or inspired by their teachings and named for them.
But that’s as sensible an order an account as any, so someone did right by you in biblical history.
The one huge flaw in the whole Jesus story is that the Romans kept impeccable records, and there are simply no references to a Jesus of Nazareth, Yeshua bin Yosef, or any variant thereof being crucified within the time period he should have died.
There WERE, however, several spiritual leaders and messiah-types running around with followings within that 30 years or so. It’s probably a good bet that some of their stories were meshed together into a semi-cohesive legend, which led to the Jesus figure we now know. That would also explain the various contradictory behaviours, the lack of his name amongst the many criminals crucified for similar reasons, and historical incongruities.
Anyway, as long as David here isn’t trying to convince us that the Old Testament is historically accurate, I won’t push this debate too far.
“– they’re letting their philosophy drive their conclusions rather than the other way around”
As opposed to those who let their religion drive their conclusions rather then the other way around?
And there are vastly, vastly, vastly more who simply suffer and DIE whether they are prayed over or not. I don’t see a 1/1000th of %1 recovery rate due to some unidentified source as a miracle…just dumb luck….or a tease. A cure for cancer/aids/MD/CF/the common cold/a broken heart – now THAT would be a miracle. Why doesn’t this god guy, in all his compassion and everlasting love for his children, pop the code for these things into some researchers brain and end the suffering of poor broken children rotting away from cancer, wasting away from other diseases that have been visited on them because their names were randomly drawn out of some cosmic hat? For every so called “miracle” there are a million stories of unwarranted, undeserved misery, pain and suffering.
Let’s face it, kids….this god guy you speak of, if he/she exists, is an absentee parent who is allowing us to go to hell in a hand cart and REFUSES to help us work our troubles and stupidities out in such a way that we can learn to live together in a world that is fair to everyone. That’s what my Dad would have done. Damn shame we can’t elect him to the god guy post.
Seems like every time we seem to begin to get a handle on things, some new terrible wrinkle gets thrown into the mix to make things even worse.
Sorry dude….your god guy resembles Loki the Trickster more than anything.
brak, God has already paid the ultimate price for the death you (and all) deserve. His name was Jesus Christ and he became sin on the cross so that your sin could be forgiven and you could be redeemed fully. If you choose to spit on this gift you will reap what you have sown, and unfortunately all your “good acts” will be nothing but filthy rags.
I suspect you don’t like this message. Tough.
“That God character” asks where were YOU when he caused the eagles to soar and set the mountains in place.
Does it make me evil that I care a lot more about people suffering and dying needlessly than the state of their theoretical, problematic and confusing soul?
If God’s going to send me to hell for how I live my life, I will have no regrets on that score. It’s mine and I’ll live it by my lights and my own best judgement of what’s right and wrong.
I’ve always been unsettled by the “blood magic” message of Chrisitanity.
It’s a belief shared by many primitive culture over the centuries.
The Incas and Mayans shared this type of belief. Until the xtians came in and slaughtered them and destroyed their civilizations before they could mature and move forward.
Ok for the third time, it is Christians not Xtians.
See my answer above…..well, way above. Point taken. Sorry.
i love how god sent himself to earth to sacrifice himself to appease himself for us. and some sacrifice it was! dead for a couple of hours then he got to live in heaven with himself for eternity. god sure knows how to put himself on the line.
now maybe if he ended up tormented in hell for eternity as a sacrifice for our sins that might make the teeniest of tiniest bit of sense, but even then its completely ridiculous on its face.
Ron….you rock. Can’t you see him saying, “See?? I put my eternal pants on one leg at a time, just like you pathetic sinners!”
Anniee
For the death I (and all) deserve? And your license to judge was granted by who? I love how you xtian types are so bloody quick to condemn. Is this the mercy your god guy practices too? Is that what inspires you to wish death and damnation on folks like me who admit we don’t have the answers?
I live a decent life. I harm no one. I offer love before hostility. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do, not because of some amorphous threat from brainwashed idealogues like yourself. Who is the more moral, sweetie….the atheist/agnostic who leads an upright and moral life because it the right thing or the xtian who, like yourself, does it insincerely because of threats attributed to your god guy (threats from a god of mercy and love….hmm) and spends their energy judging and damning those whose attempts to explain the universe do not agree with yours?
I’m the first to admit I don’t have the answers. I also know that neither do you. So stop pretending. And stop judging.
And for those christians who are not like Aimmee…please, folks, do not include yourselves in my rant. Tolerance is a virtue we should all strive to promote. Sometimes I am as guilty of overreaction as anyone. I am not a churchgoer but I would NEVER be a part of anything that would seek to close your doors.
I’m not the one who says you and all deserve it, brak – shooting the messenger, you are. *I* don’t decide what the scripture says, get it? *I* don’t determine the content. It is what it is. *I* don’t damn anyone and I’m not (at least not now) the judge. There is an objective standard the bible has for these things, and I am merely stating what they are. You are free as everyone is to accept or reject them.
But what kind of person would I be if, when *the question arises*, I didn’t at least state the clear meaning of the text I believe (with good reason) to be absolutely true and accurate? One that warns of coming death and provides a way out, provides salvation? If I watched people dive headlong off a cliff as they *asked* what eternal life was about and didn’t bother to even tell them? Would THAT be moral and upright? No, “sweetie”, it would not. Nor would it be loving.
No, you mistake both the message, the content, the delivery, and the messenger. But atheists often do.
Sweetie, you forgot to mention the moral, upright, loving way you call them a moron bitch.
And the bone head turd….don’t forget the bone head turd.
I’m all for being patient and enjoying the odd troll now and then, but after what, months is it now? of this tedious verbal abuse of people I genuinely admire, and petty insults, and generally intolerant masturbatory nastiness, I’m inclined to swipe back on occasion. Why shouldn’t I?
-sigh- agreed… “the messenger”?
it seems to me like Annie’s saying she’s become another prophet.
You’re reading WAYYYYY too much into it in that case, Tyler. What a stupid way to take it.
Yes pittypat I’m sure you genuinely admire Fister and other abusive people – it doesn’t speak well of you, you know.
After a mere two days of analysis on this board, I have come to the determination that Anniee is really a troll with the thin veil of a Christian mother over her (his?) posts to make them appear more legitimate and less troll-like.
As such, I suggest everyone on the board simply ignore her and move on with their day.
Wow you decided that after two days of analysis, eh? Aren’t you the clever one?
Get bent, assmunch.
See? Now watch carefully, kids, as I ignore the angry steer and slowly walk away without injury.
To be clear, I am an agnostic, not an atheist. Large difference. And your point about message/messenger is well taken. However, if you go back and re-read your post you will see how I could interpret it as hostile and accusing. Your tendency to name-call doesn’t help the message.
My point is that NO ONE truly knows what the secrets of the universe and life are. No one. Not you or me or the people (note the word people) who wrote your book. We, as a species, are incapable of understanding what is out there and how it works. We simply haven’t evolved to that point yet…might never. We are a rather stupid and pugnacious lot. Just because it is in a book does not make it the ultimate truth. All God’s chillun got a book. There are more books out there than you can shake a prophet at. It is insufferable arrogance to dismiss all other forms of belief as, what….heretic…evil…work of the devil….bad juju?
If we could all just sit back and say, ok-here’s what I think, what do you think?….and then LISTEN to each other maybe we could all find a common path that would eliminate the need for religions in general and all the violence , power struggles and intolerant claptrap that goes with them.
Mere belief does not make things so. We know nothing. We only have opinions and stories handed down since the beginning of the human race. Come on….knowing what we know about our stupid species….what really are the chances that we got this right?
And if there is a God, why does he have to live up to our standards?
I’m not trying to bash you here, Anniee, but you’re preaching. Bordering on proselytizing.
Besides, it’s just as valid to say that Mithra died for your sins, or to ask if you’re spitting on Krishna’s gift of eternal love and tranquility.
Besides, many Christians believe that it’s acts, not words, that get one into heaven. Quite a few other religions believe the same… some even go so far as to say that it isn’t the religion that matters, but the deeds one commits during their life. That’s a much better message, I think, than “join my faith or burn forever!”
FYI: Hell wasn’t always written as being a permanent punishment. Originally, it was a temporary place to put sinners until they learned their lesson. Also, the “eternal torture” part is relatively new to the concept, at least according to what I’ve heard from my Jewish friends. It WAS their story first, after all.
“I’m not trying to bash you here, Anniee, but you’re preaching. Bordering on proselytizing.”
Not even close.
FYI: Of course I’m aware of this – Sheol, Gehenna, the Lake of Fire – this is not news to any bible student. Just like the Bosom of Abraham is not Paradise is not The New Heaven and the New Earth. This is evident from the story of Lazarus and the rich man. What takes place before the final judgment is obviously not what takes place after it. This is not difficult to comprehend.
May I also point out that your attitude of moral righteousness and religious devotion is offset by your habit of childishly calling people “moron,” “b*tch,” and other insulting names.
You can’t preach love & peace while practicing hate & anger. It makes you a hypocrite.
Also, you never responded to my point about the validity of other religions.
Nope. It’s not words OR acts.
Christians know that it’s SALVATION that gets one into heaven.
did you SERIOUSLY imply that you could ask a question directly for god there? also, i feel like you’re trying to guilt trip me into believing in the first paragraph. feels a bit preachy to me too, like stated below.
The answer to your question is simple. “I don’t know.”
Even if miraculous things do happen, that’s not proof of a Christian god any more than it is the divine intervention from Zeus or Odin.
The universe is vast beyond comprehension and we are an immeasurably tiny part of it. For all of our progress and achievements, we’ve barely scratched the surface. So to believe that a bunch of people who still through the Earth was flat had any significant insight into the creation of all things… it’s absurd.
There might be greater powers out there, but to think we have any idea what they are, what they can do, and what their intentions may be, that’s just supremely arrogant.
Very well said.
lulz. I like Norse Mythology but i’m agnostic, just felt like saying that, sorry
There are no miracle cures. If ‘miracle cures’ really worked, we would be studying them. The first Christian who was also a scientist and proved any of these cures worked, EVER, would get a Nobel Prize. Stories are known as ‘anecdotes,’ and aren’t data because they aren’t confirmed. Have YOU ever seen a miracle healing? No, or you would have mentioned it. Just stories, ’some’ from people you trust.
Atheists don’t explain unexplained events, we just admit they are unexplained. Every single scientific advance came from something that was, at one time, unexplained. Just think about all the unexplained things that we’ve explained over the centuries using the scientific method. Ever hear of the ‘God of the Gaps?’ Look it up.
I don’t think so. There is no promise that they will work all the time. They aren’t like a drug that will have some known effect on your body. You are, essentially, asking a person (God) to intervene on your behalf, a person that has the power to cure but who sees a far, far bigger picture than you and may choose not to. Because miracles are not guaranteed repeatable, they cannot be studied in a scientific manner. Doesn’t mean they don’t happen though.
Have I ever seen a miracle healing? Not in the sense of an incurable disease. I have prayer for ill people before, felt quite intensely within myself during the prayer that they would be healed, and then found the next day that they had been. Now, you’ll tell me that was just a coincidence, and I can never prove otherwise.
What about those who feel quite intensely the presents of shiva? What do you do when they tell you that they’re the one with the real god and what you feel is made up? Do you just tell them the same in return?
This is what we see about that. And I am just explaining, not trying to start a flame war. Believe whatsoever you wish, but let others do the same.
MATTHEW 5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
Meh…I can only say that Jesus himself stated “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no one can come to the Father, except through me” Each of us needs to choose to accept Him for who He says He is. He did not come into the world to condemn it but to save it. God made the way to Him. There is no other way. Does that mean I condemn others? Absolutely not, but I would be condemning myself if I reject the way that God provided for me. It may seem like semantics. That’s why is so important to really know who Jesus is. It’s the whole point of sharing this, Jesus – the truth, with others.
You know, scientists can induce a feeling of the presence of the divine by stimulating a certain part of the brain.
Seth, stop talking about your erections already!
LOL! And touche, so to speak
Neurotheology’s been around a while. Anyone who’s worked with epileptics know about this. It’s fascinating.
*knows
The question to me would be is it the feeling of the divine, the diabolical, or the carnal sensation of euphoria? I would say it’s the latter. You cannot substitute the real thing. If you do, you owuld only be playing God and then we would honestly start believing that we are gods. The theories in quantum physics, though, is now challenging the scientists to really think out of the box — that the unexplainable may need to be revered…may be there is a sovereign God.
Funny. You either believe (have faith) or dont believe. No one can confirm that while I was worshipping God during a miscarriage that he heard my plea (my asking that my children not see me in pain as they were on their way from school). While in pain (laborlike pains) and profusely bleeding, I had to wait to run to the hospital because they were on school buses. I decided that if the miscarriage was meant to be, then so be it but I will still worship Him for who He is. In the midst of worship both the pain and bleeding ceased and I was able to get up from the chair and walk towards the sink to wash dishes right before they walked thru the door. I believe in the power of God.
Oh good f–king gods. EJ, PLEASE tell me you went to a hospital as soon as possible. That was serious trouble!
Multi-Facets…I had to wait for my boys before my husband took me to the hospital. Yes. I did go and they confirmed I had a miscarriage, especially after I told them what came out of me. I had to return the following day for a DNC, but when the physician did the ultrasound he said he was going to try something (because there was a small remnant within – which later we found had the remains of the child). Evidently, what shifting was done finished the job and I didn’t need a DNC. Praise God! I count myself blessed. 7 months later, I conceived my daughter who is now 7 years old.
Were your kids were too young to be home alone?
Sorry to keep you waiting. I have more young ones and it was hectic Memorial Day. Yes…they were in elementary school at the time.
No rush, no worries. The youth of your kids makes this make more sense.
I’m honestly not faulting you for your faith, EJ, and I bet some divinity or another did give you a hand when you needed it. Just the thought of someone not getting help in time during something like that is kind of scary.
So where did you and your cancerous son run to?
So when you experienced a miraculous cure, you got up and washed the dishes?
It should be really really obvious to you why the rest of us don’t believe these claims.
I didn’t say it was a miraculous “cure”. You did. I believe the Lord answered my prayer and had mercy on me in the midst of my acknowledging that He is to be worshipped in spite of what we are going through. His mercy and love is very real. I can go on.
First: are these “miraculous cures” documented, or are they just hearsay? I mean, my own mother claimed to be “healed by Jesus” after a rather speedy recovery from what she was told was a terminal illness. Turns out it was a misdiagnosis by her aging family doctor; yet she still claims it was a miracle.
Second: what makes them more viable than similar accounts from people of other faiths?
Third: things happen all the time that we can’t explain… yet. A few centuries ago, nobody knew what caused the Plague. Now we do. Science never claims to have ALL the answers, and it likely never will. In those unexplained cases, all we can do is say, “We’re not sure right now.”
Copycat.
Oh, and science explicitly states it will never know if it has all the answers, or even the right answers. Only that the theories make accurate predictions in given circumstances. Science can’t look behind the curtain and see the way things REALLY work, but it doesn’t need to. It just needs to build models that predict the visible effects. Those models don’t need to be anything like the way things really are, as long as they make accurate predictions.
So far, nothing supernatural has ever been proven.
Actually, in the Smitsonian, there is a picture that is labeled as the only known picture of a supernatural being. There was what most call a halo over the head of a preacher, in 1958. The photograph was inspected by Robert G Lacy, head of the FBI at the time, for any kind of fakery, and none found. The preacher said it was the Holy Ghost, and that he saw it all the time. The link is the story behind it.
Honestly, that just looks like a badly developed photo… It’s a huge jump in logic to say that a white blur on a photo is an angelic Halo. Could be the devil standing on his head swirling his pitchfork really quick.
If the height of technology in 1950 (That’s the dating on the report on the site) couldn’t figure out what it was then it must be true!
(On a second look at the photo, the oval shape looks like the mouth of a large lamp or floodlight from the side)
I have read the whole story, but that is beside the point. It is in the Smithsonian as a supernatural being. Not the preacher, but the “halo.”
From what I understand, reading about it, and from others, the investigation was making sure that it wasn’t a background light, ect….. Mr Lacy’s statement was that “it was deffinately light striking the film.”
Call it a pheonomina, whatever, but it is certainly interesting, and in our Smithsonian.
Playing the devil’s advocate….. Satan is the Angel of Light. Could that be him, deceiving people? That is something EACH AND EVERY individual needs to decide for themselves about every preacher, religion, cause, global warming, Toyota, GM, UAW, lolipops ect….
It’s remarkably uninteresting. At best, it’s an unexplained defect in a photograph. If that’s the closest thing they’ve got to proof of a “holy spirit”, they’ve got nothing.
I’m not finding any good evidence that this photo actually is in the Smithsonian, either. Are you sure about that?
Well, it’s in the Smithsonian, so I has to be real.
/sarcasm off
Your photograph is very similar to a lot of photos of UFOs and ghosts: studied and ‘proven’ to be unfakeable. While I’m prepared to believe intelligent life evolved elsewhere, I find the idea that they’ve watching us for hundreds of years unlikely; I don’t believe in ghosts, and I think that a Divine Creator would either not leave proof of his existence, or would make it obvious he existed. Little blurs of light in a photograph seem a bit weak to me.
See.. here you’re assuming that ghosts are proof of a divine creator. Who said that is so? We don’t understand ghosts, but that lack of understanding isn’t a concrete license to declare it would-be proof of a god. I can understand that you probably made that inference through YOUR preset BELIEF (not fact) that ghosts ARE, as a fact, a property of an “afterlife” situation, and since the notion of an “afterlife” is a common incentive-tactic frequently shared by most religions… then therefore believing in ghosts is.. to you.. believing in would-be proof of god.
..Which you don’t want to do, because for no apparent reason other than because it’s convenient for yourself, you also believe that if there was a divine creator that they would leave absolutely no proof, or completely undeniable proof of their existence. This is your belief, and not the foundation of any major religion whatsoever.
So, please tell me that you can reflect back on this statement and understand that although you are just simply stating what you believe (no harm in that at all), that this sort of thing is why I can’t respect any sort of religious belief.
I know that that wasn’t the intention of your comment, but I’m just using this in context to continue this scattered debate between theism and atheism.
Sorry, but you’re falsely conflating my non-belief in ghosts and my non-belief in Christianity. In fact, if I were Christian, I would be forbidden from believing in ghosts.
I’m not entirely sure where you are going when you challenge the “preset BELIEF (not fact) that ghosts ARE, as a fact, a property of an “afterlife” “. The DEFINITION of “ghost” is the remnant of a dead person.
Really, I’m not sure what your point is. Elaborate a little and I’d be happy to respond!
“. In fact, if I were Christian, I would be forbidden from believing in ghosts.”
LOL. Wait what? How about the holy ghost? Souls..
perhaps I’m understanding you incorrectly (been up 21hours)
I think most people render it as The Holy Spirit; certainly, nobody believes it’s actually the remnant of a dead human being!
Hope you sleep well!
Where does it say you can’t believe in ghosts?
Oh, my last girlfriend used to obsess over this one (Seventh Day Adventist). I’ve never seen any passage that talks about it, and the Old Testament features prominent ghosts in a couple places, but the argument is that when you die, you either go to Heaven or Hell. God doesn’t give you the option to postpone going to Hell so you can roam the earth, and who would pass up Heaven just so you could rattle chains and freak out the living?
BTW, if you’re thinking that perhaps a Seventh Day Adventist might be a reasonable, live and let live kind of Christian, don’t be fooled. I found out they’re so Christian they think all other Christians are going to Hell, so a Pagan like me has no chance of living in peace with them!
Well, we consider SDA to be nuts, so I guess it’s all the same in the end
No need to be sorry.
My argument largely is that I don’t think that you should be defining ghosts. You can continue to do so, but you can also try to define dark matter, or maybe wormholes. Because you can find it in the dictionary doesn’t mean that we know what it is.
And Christians do believe in ghosts.. apparitions are defined by many names.. ghosts, spirits, wraiths, banshees, etc… either way, the Bible is filled with superstitious visitations, visions, and other manifestations of deceased individuals.
The fact is that we don’t KNOW what a ghost is. I have my theories, but they’re just that. The modern idea of a ghost is largely controlled by Duelists. That is, people that believe a person is in 2 main parts: the body, and the “soul”. But that idea is rarely questioned, and so the idea persists as fact, when.. in-fact.. it’s not. The ghost could be a number of things.. but the duelist approach is definitely not anything more than just a well-established idea.
If one accepts that the phenomena associated with ghosts or haunting actually exist (I remain agnostic about this), it does not necessarily follow that the cause is the non-corporeal remains of a dead human. It could just as easily be gremlins, goblins, kobolds, nature spirits, the Sidhe, unidentified non-corporeal life forms, or scientific experiments performed by invisible aliens. However, check out the definition of ghost:
1: the seat of life or intelligence : soul 2: a disembodied soul ; especially : the soul of a dead person believed to be an inhabitant of the unseen world or to appear to the living in bodily likeness
I’ve experienced my share of creepy phenomena, mind you. No, I won’t tell you about them; I’m all alone in a dark apartment and I don’t want to conjure them up again! I remain unconvinced that it has anything to do with discorporate humans however.
Well.. thats kind of ineffective..
Creator of the universe and all he has supposedly accomplished is a freaking halo on someones head?
Do something useful instead. Get rid of cancer for instance..
Anyhow, I seriously doubt the picture proves anything supernatural.
The difference between saying “It was a miracle” and saying “something damned odd happened” is that the miracle version is saying that ONLY a religious influence acted on the sick person, whereas the damned odd version leaves it open to anything.
Oddly enough, the American Sign Language signs for “religion” and “single minded” differ only in the location of the hand in relation to the body; the sign itself is the same motion…
Statistics. Say that a really nasty form of cancer has only a 5% survival rate. For 1 out of 20 people, it’s a miracle from heaven. For the other 19, it was just God’s will. Or it was the Devil’s fault, take your pick.
its up to you to prove a “miraculous” cure, not the other way around. and stories you heard from so and so dont count.
David, the problem with your assertion of miracles is that they don’t happen under circumstances that can be verified scientifically.
1) The vast majority of them amount to being hearsay evidence.
2) “Miraculous” cures of say, cancer, suffer as evidence, because we don’t really know what causes cancer to begin with. One might as well assert they prove the existence of invisible gremlins who mess with one’s body for good and evil.
3) Miracles are not limited to any one religion: most religions claim their share of miracles. Which religion is the one true religion, which have fake miracles, and how does someone who makes decisions using logic and reason decide which is which?
Well, obviously [my religion] is the one true faith, and everyone else’s religion is false. Because [my holy book] says that [my religion] is true. As [my religion] is proven the true religion, [my holy book] is the one true book.
Your joke would be funny, if only it were funny, if you know what I mean.
You’re so right, Seth: that’s probably the ONE common belief of all religions – that theirs is the ONE true religion.
I have another commonality, theirs is the one true religion; AND all other religions got it wrong, so come follow us.
Then why has god never healed an amputee?
Because He needs a starship. Super-bonus points to anyone who gets that one.
*in best Shatner voice*
What would God want with a Starship?
Subtracting -15 Internets from arimareiji and PS for quoting Star Trek V. At least quote a good one.
It’s not a good movie, but on the other hand it has Shatner in it. Pros and cons.
No argument here that V was miserably bad, but sometimes you can find gems inside of coprolites. Contrast with III, which was one of the best – but the only line that was even vaguely memorable was “5… 4… 3…”
“How many fingers am I holding up?”–Kirk, making the Vulcan hand sign
“That’s not very damn funny.”–Bones
Religion is nothing but a motivator. It gives people justification to do whatever they want to do.
If you want to help poor kids learn to read or feed the homeless, religion gives you a basis to do that.
If you want to treat minorities like crap and feel smug and self-righteous, religion gives you a basis to do that.
People can use “the will of god” to justify pretty much anything, good or bad. In either case, religion is nothing more than a scapegoat that people can point to and say “I’m doing this because…”
Eh, I like the Approach they used on the show numb3rs, religion is like a police that keeps the 90 percent of its units in check. But like any Organization there’s always that 10%…
…and they’re called “godless heathens.”
And DAMN do we know how to party!
And piss off fundies!
And boy can you debate well. I enjoy the concrete that you can present countering our leaps of faith.
Oh, calm down, junior. Some of it is meant to be funny, whether you think it is or not. The rest is my opinion, and, as I have read, you have your own. Go ahead and leap. I won’t try to stop you.
No, no, no. You misunderstood me. I was serious. Not sarcastic at all. I appreciate how my atheist friend keeps me grounded in many situations. Sheesh you try and be nice. I am not a fundamentalist or a belter at all, I am rather a really loose Catholic, questioning the faith I was brought up in, many times. Sorry you took offense, I meant it as a compliment.
LOL, sorry. Hard to distinguish between sincerity and sarcasm on the interwebs. Second time in this forum I’ve eaten crow. I’m stuffed!
Welcome to the club!
After-dinner mint?
I’ll foot the bill my ladies.
*grumbles*
He gets all the girls…
Huh huh. Huh huh. You said “loose Catholic.”
Hard to believe I know, but we exist.
Um, yeah. I was going somewhere totally different and far more offensive with that joke. So, uh, nevermind then. :-X
No, I got it, I just chose to steer it away from there with a serious response.
Very true, and you seem to have understood the point of the LOL. Funny how in that regard, religion is very much like alcohol – an excuse to do something you would have done anyway, for good or bad.
Did someone mention alcohol? I’ll drink to that!
There damn well better be a God and a Heaven because believing that my daughter is up there with Him is just about the only thing that keeps me getting out of bed in the morning.
And that’s how religion Should be followed.
Really? You find nothing else?
If your kid died, you’d get it.
I get it, Eric. Big hugs to you.
Ditto and a half, though there’s more than one way to get it. And I truly hope you never have to get it, 1984.
In no way do I mean to say that is a small event..
But the human coping mechanism, built in into us and anything with a piece of DNA is very powerful driving force to get us going on.
Btw, I’ve experienced loss (I know the tremendous pain).. although not a child..
Then you still don’t get it. I’d experienced tremendous loss before too (a close friend died when I was 18), and that was a papercut compared to this, thanks. And I still get up in the morning and get my other kids off to school and go to work, but many days I’d just rather not and would prefer to stay in bed instead. I’m told that it gets “easier” as time goes on. This just happened in February so the wound is still fresh. I don’t mean to sound harsh, but I’m 100% serious that if you’ve never lost a child that you literally don’t and can’t get it. It’s a very exclusive club of pain and misery that I hope none of you have to face and if you have faced it, then you have my sincerest empathy.
Almost experienced it, which is why I always get a little cold inside when you talk about it.
*hug*
Thanks, and sorry to make you relive that. That’s an awful awful feeling. :-\ I always feel like I gain a little strength when I talk about it, so I try not to avoid it.
No worries, I can’t complain and my discomfort is no reason to avoid talking about it. It gives you strength and that is what is important to me.
-hugs-
thank you. you are a good example of how religion SHOULD be for people, not zealotry and killing…. and i’m so, so sorry that happened :/ i can’t even imagine that, and i personally think you have tremendous strength. may whatever deity and paradise that happens to BE up there bless you, man.
Oh, I do get it. My father died back in 1997 when I was 18 years old. Result? Lots and lots of gried.. it leaves scars.
But, fact is, still the coping mechanism within humans will make it possible to move on…And its unlikely only your belief..
Anyhow, if anything any deity deserves at least a kick or two in the nuts for letting it happen in the first place. This is at best incompetence.
eric, the losses i’ve suffered don’t compare to yours and i won’t pretend they do. but the sharpness of the pain does eventually lessen. it just takes time, sometimes lots of time. those edges are hard and it takes a lot of day to day living to wear down the jagged edges. allow yourself time to heal, that little angel didn’t worm his/her way into your heart overnight, don’t expect the pain to ease any quicker.
One could also ask. What good god would allow this world?
This is at best incompetence.
I’ve had family memebers die, too, and regardless, they’re worm food. That doesn’t change the fact they meant everything to me or were a large part of my life. It just means I have photos, memories and the stories from other family members to keep them alive. But they’re still organic, still decompose and still feed the trees.
Good for you. Now f*** off. My daughter is more than just worm food, and anyone who suggests differently to me unleashes the anger of a grieving father, which no human in their right mind would do willingly. I do not hold myself responsible for anything that comes out of my mouth (or fingertips) for suggesting that.
When you get into an argument, and whether you win or loose, check your feeling. Wind out of your sails when you have lost, and a triumphant bloated feeling when you win. This is a weird situation, why would someone feel good about winning? Because they were right. Why is it important to be right? Morals, society etc. Not to jump to the religious conclusion at an unexplainable situation, but some believe an argument is a battle between souls. Yes the notion that a scientist like Descartes got to. Explains the feelings, without having to rationalize it yes. It is nice for the believers not to always question. You win, your soul wins the argument and you feel better on the inside, rather than being a model citizen. Believers should not be criticized for being believers, nor should they pressure the non-believers to follow. To each their own and we will get along fine. Eddie Murphy put it best in his delirious tour, though he was talking about homosexuals at the time, but take a person as they are not what they believe in, that is how it should be.
There are a number of things that one can never win; there are only degrees of losing. War and divorce are the two most commonly cited examples, but an argument over whose emotions are superior is another good one… even more so than an argument over whose invisible friend is superior.
I.e, to copy from Eric, “Good for you” if you feel your way of expressing grief is better. Go write a book about it; maybe it’ll be a bestseller. But to tell someone who’s grieving to stop feeling as they do is very Phelps-ian.
It’s not so much about expressing grief as it is about a chemical breakdown of a human body. He said, “There damn well better be a God and a Heaven because believing that my daughter is up there with Him is just about the only thing that keeps me getting out of bed in the morning.”
It looks to me like he’s not too sure himself. He’s spending all this time, effort and emotion believing in something he damn sure hopes is there. This is my point.
Not once did I instruct him what to believe or how to feel. Death is the end unless you have irrefutable proof otherwise. And by “irrefutable proof”, I don’t mean Bible scripture or that you just “know”. Show all of us disbelievers a theorem, a law, a true photograph, a signed statement by god himself that, when touched, will glow and resound in the Hallelujah chorus.
Though what I said showed no emotion or remorse for either your or my losses, that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there. It just means I understand that my family members’ bodies are helping the earth in resupplying her nutrients.
Anyone may take all of this how he or she sees fit. I stand remains static.
That should be “my stand remains static”.
I’m not surprised that’s the case, but then again I doubt you expected me to be.
My own stance also remains unchanged: Telling someone who’s venting an expression of raw grief that they’re not being rational about it is tantamount to telling them their feelings are invalid.
Grief is inherently irrational. We know that death, heartbreak, and suffering are all inevitable. And we know that losing something means that for a time, we were lucky enough to have it. But that doesn’t keep it from hurting.
We all try to get past the irrationality in our own way, and move on with our lives. But we have to do it by experiencing it and accepting it, not by being logically convinced that we’re silly buggers.
Thanks, you said it better than I could’ve.
I don’t know the full depth of your grief, but I can at least relate and hope the best for you. Sometimes time just stops. The world stops revolving, and the insides of your heart feel like a pocketwatch wrapped in a handkerchief and repeatedly struck with a hammer.
I know I don’t have the answer for how to pick up from that, how to un-end the world or wave a magic wand and put all the shards back together. If someone does, good for them. But I don’t think any human has the answer for someone else. IMO, for anyone to think so would only show how much they don’t understand the subject.
It’d be nice if time would stop, but unfortunately it just keeps going. But I’m sure I’ll survive.
i love you a little, mr. super-logic-man.
you brightened my day quite a bit.
The premise of Christianity or any type of belief system is faith. I cannot show you a glowing scroll because there isn’t one. I can tell you about personal experience, personal views of God, and my own revelations about the situation, but asking me to produce something tangible is akin to me asking you that if you believe that a big bang actually produced what we live on today, then show me a picture of it. You can’t, even though there is scientific evidence that it *probably* happened.
-
Invalidating Eric’s feelings because you don’t share his particular faith is sick.
And no Christian has ever done this to anyone from another faith. Hypocrisy all the way around.
We aren’t talking about other Christians, and you’re changing the subject. I wasn’t defending other Christians, I was tell *you* that you are wrong.
And I apologized, but you didn’t see that, did you?
I did, but not until after I had posted. It’s a bit further down, and I was replying as I got to stuff.
Girls, there’s clearly only one way to settle this.
Mudbath catfight.
Rwar.
And since you two are talking about me, I get to be the ref. ::nods vigorously::
Of course I’m not sure of myself. Faith offers no proof of any kind. And no matter what your intent is, it’s rather tactless to talk about dead people being worm food when someone is talking about their daughter dying. I mean, honestly. Rationality aside, it’s just cold.
*gives Eric hugs and thanks him for being such a classy guy* Part of the reason I’m Agnostic is because I don’t like other people telling me what to think. I believe that no one, be they athiest, Christian, or anything in between, has the right to imply that you are somehow less then them for believing something they don’t. Your religion gives you comfort and I’m glad you can find some in this very difficult time.
Thanks, Jane, but generally speaking I’m far from classy.
I offer my sincere condolences, and hope that you find peace.
I’m more in the camp of “There damn well better be a God and a Heaven because when I get there that cocksucker’s got some ’splainin to do!”
But I feel you, bror.
The pascal wager should mean something to you then.
I can’t believe Pascal’s Wager was ever committed to paper. Stick to maths, Pascal.
Like many scientists around the earlier times, he was not strictly a scientist they all dabbled. He did alot of experimenting, and well when one applies the Pascal wager to the existence of God there are 4 outcomes. 1) We believe and there is a God, we get eternal happiness. 2) We believe and there is no God, huge letdown. 3) We don’t believe, there is a God, damnation for all eternity. Unless we repent but that is another story. 4) We don’t believe, there is no God, we know we were right. This all happens after death so we can’t exactly flaunt it regardless of the outcome. You can apply this to any religion.
The criticism of the wager that I’d agree with runs along the lines of what a deity might choose to ‘reward’ you for after death, and if a calculated risk/return analysis is worth more than a good life.
I am not saying that one should choose to perform an analysis before choosing what way they want to live. They should live their life in the best way possible, I was merely responding to how the first gentleman said, “there dam well better be a God.” One shouldn’t live a good life just out of hope for a “reward” but rather just because one wants to. This is the other pascal experiment. Does one do a good deed to get a treat or just because it is the right thing to do.
Fair enough. I read in some approval of the wager, which is morally repugnant to me, my bad. I entirely agree that living your life by what seems right and wrong to you is much more important than a theoretical experiment.
Though I think he was keen on meeting god not to get his ‘reward’, but to ask him some tough questions. Which I have to agree is a very appealing idea.
Now I pose you this, for an omnipotent God would these questions first get annoying? and another would be Do you think he would cut you off with the answers mid question? Just to lighten the mood. May I ask why is it repugnant to you to approve of the wager?
I’d like to think that, if I’m wrong and there is a God, it wouldn’t hold my ignorance against me. And it’d be happy to set me straight.
I was unclear about the wager. Approval of it I would see as misguided, the wager itself as morally repugnant. I very strongly believe in Kant’s ’summum bodum’ (sp?), the highest good. Whenever you do something good because you will be rewarded, that good act is diminished. Good for it’s own sake is the highest thing we may aspire to.
The wager to me seems like an attempt to reduce a moral choice to pragmatic egoism. That makes is very, very wrong, at least by my lights.
Summum bonum according to further research. The wager is actually a way in which to question one’s beliefs. It is not meant as an actual wager in which to enter into a religion. It is almost a reinforcement, though it gives you an outlook on what your options and outcomes are. Personally, I believe that using the wager to gauge what you should do is incorrect. Using the wager does break it down to what one thinks the best outcome for them is.
One thing I must add though, most religions offer a chance to apologize or repent. So in the end any choice is still an acceptable choice. One negating the existence of God is not being ignorant, ignorance is not getting all the facts about a topic and speaking falsely about it. One can’t prove or disprove the idea of God, it then falls on faith to believe or not believe. It has very little to do with knowledge so fear not, you are not in the wrong at all. (Not ignorant).
That actually seems admirable. Holding up a model of poor faith as a means of more closely examining what you believe. Using it to reinforce faith – ‘I’m not sure, but the alternative could end badly for me’ – I’d still see as misguided at best.
And I’m not sure I would necessarially repent if given the option. It would depend exactly what was involved, and what kind of god it was towards. Imagine repenting to John Calvin’s god…
I’d agree that you can’t prove or disprove God, because the term is just too ambiguous. I hold to atheism for moral reasons. To my mind, religion is like a moral crutch. It can be very helpful when you need the support, but if you come to rely on it it does more harm than good.
Just my perception based on limited study and small sample size, not meant as a jab at anyone else’s opinions.
What is it you don’t like about Calvin? A bit hellfirey?
Mainly the ‘God as an abusive father’ angle. I’d need to be convinced that a deity was worthy of worship, even if I was certain it existed. The attidute of Calvin’s god towards his children pretty much precludes that.
Holding up the model is fine, it is the using of it that makes the act of pursuing faith a wrong choice; as it has become an egotistical one.
I would agree with you in the repenting as well. If I believe in God and he turns out to be an a-hole, I think at that point I would go as far as to deny him, damnation or not. The opposite way is true, if I have to repent to an a-hole then I’ll walk my way down to hell. Thing is we are taught that God is nice, so one would think that he would accept non-believers and believers alike. If he is omnipotent he would know some of us need visual proof to fully commit and be ready for when the time came to bring us back in. That is all pending he actually exists.
I prefer to use rational thought first, rather than always depending on what my faiths morals are. For instance, if I kill someone I would go to jail. Well going to jail is bad, so I am not going to kill someone. The backup behind that is that I find it morally wrong myself to kill someone as they are human, and I know that no matter what they are doing I can’t deny that fact. Behind all that yes the religious morals say to love thy neighbo(u)r and that it is wrong to kill. With rational thought I can come to that conclusion just as well. For me when there is no logical explanation of why something just happened, I do not jump straight to the supernatural, but I will still know something is up. Either I can’t understand the whole situation or maybe it was a higher power. If I choose the higher power option, in my mind I always reserve the right to re-investigate the situation at a later time to find a rational reason.
That all being said, yes religion to me as well is a moral crutch, not to be depended on but to help us make it on our own. When we can’t find the strength by ourselves, it is there for us to help us along. For this I usually mean in times sorrow and such; like the loss of a love one. It is hard to have strength on our own and it is a nice notion to know that faith is there for us and the one who is no longer with us. To me it is a better feeling than thinking they are gone, now only decomposing and nothing more. My rational side always hits me with this during these times and I find faith consoles a bit better.
Honestly, a lot of my morality is drawn from good religous teachings. While I want to live by my own beliefs, refusing to learn from the wisdom of others is just arrogant. The bible, and other christian works, have a lot of good stuff in them.
Morally, I’d always start with rationality. Looking carefully at the available options with (hopefully) an inquiring and open mind, informing myself of the ins and outs of right and wrong. Then, in any given situation, I’d rely on the understanding I’ve built, coupled witha respect for others, to make a judgement as to how I should act. Broadly speaking, rational moral theory and intuitionist application based on that rational understanding. Moral judgements leap out of a black box, and under pressure you go with them. But you can take the box apart and make it better in your downtime.
I have a slightly lower view of logic than a lot of people. It’s a system we made up to understand our lives; it’s not always going to fit. I think someone else said it best elsewhere on this page, that science is never sure if it’s right, just that it’s less wrong than it used to be. Logic is the same way, at least to my mind. How we explain things is more a matter of personal choice, what makes sense and works, than anything else.
I haven’t lost an immediate family member, so I can’t speak from experience. But a rotting corpse and nothing more is far from everything a person can leave behind. That’s where I’ve taken my comfort when people I’ve known have passed away.
Nothing more I could say than that I agree completely. Who said a religious person and an agnostic couldn’t get along huh?
I’m an atheist (or a pantheist, depending on how anthropomorphic you like your deity). And I’ve enjoyed debate with everyone from Mormons to Jehovah’s Witnesses to your fine self.
We can all get along, and have a damn fun time doing it.
I guess the key is not to enforce your views upon the other and you shall be fine. Live and let live one of the best rules ever aside from the Golden Rule. I find myself a loose Catholic, bouncing back a fourth along the religious scale.
@purple switch: Either you are an atheist or a pantheist. The two are not synonymous.
Charro; I would call myself an atheistic monist. However, some atheists get offended by that, and call me a pantheist. It’s no great shakes to me either way, just failing horribly to be clear.
Purple, what is your definition of an atheist?
Someone who believes that god does not exist.
The tricky part is what you mean by god. Because the term is so flexible, I tend to go with’ whatever you say it means’. So an atheist is ‘anyone who believes that whatever they define as god does not exist’.
I’d define god as anthropomorphic, at least to some degree. I believe that such an entity does not exist. So I would call myself an atheist. But by other definitions of god, which don’t require anthropomorphism, I’m not an atheist, so it gets kind of complicated.
Now you’re just trying to be difficult
What, you think I’m into philosophy for the drugs and nookie?
Why yes, yes I do.
So which definition of “god” do you believe exists?
If you attribute human characteristics to the god, he regards himself as an atheist, if you simply believe in god being a force, like a higher power, law of nature, then he is a pantheist. I would describe him more as an agnostic as he feels there may be something when not humanly attributed. I find most pantheists are technically agnostics in waiting. I hope I don’t offend anyone. Specially for fielding your question purp.
No sweat. Talking about yourself is always fun, thanks for taking an interest.
I believe that everything is both part of a greater whole and composed of smaller parts. Any understanding we have of the world is just a framework built in our heads to help us live our lives. We pick and choose points on a continuum and say ‘that’s a table’, but it’s really just our idea of ‘a table’ correlating with a pile of stuff.
This means that everything taken together could be referred to as one thing. Some people would describe this as God. I’d say that it is ineffable, totally beyond any kind of definition, because all definition is derived from it (it being everything, after all).
I would also not attribute any kind of mind, will or plan to it. I also don’t think it acts in our lives or that we could relate to it. So I don’t think it qualifies as a God, just a very big lump of stuff all put in the same mental box of ‘everything’.
‘What does God mean’ is often a more interesting question than ‘Do you believe in God’. If anyone else has an interesting definition, I’d love to hear it.
As always well done ps.
Now to piss everybody off or at least annoy them.
Omnipotent means all powerful, not all knowing. Omniscient means all knowing. And no, they aren’t interchangable.
And technically an atheist would believe that nothing deific exists at all, therefore it could not be synomoous with any other “theist” label. If you say you are conditionally atheist, then all you are admitting is that you don’t know and therefore you fall into Agnostic, without passing go or collecting 200 god points.
And other theism would be having a definite belief which is where the labels get their meaning.
Omnipotence implies the ability to make yourself omniscient. If you had other traits (say, omnibenevolence) that made omniscience necessary, then your hand would be forced. That’s how I read omnipotence = omniscience, though yes it is unclear and confusing. I might also be massively overanalyzing a typo.
An atheist must believe that nothing they define as a deity exists. Change the definition of deity to air, and there are no atheists. Change it to unicorns and there are a lot more atheists. Because there is no universally accepted definition of ‘God’, how you describe your beliefs may well differ from how others describe them.
I definitely describe myself as atheist, and other people have definitely described me as a pantheist, because we had different definitions of god.
It really sounds to me as though you have made your own definition of god, and therefore are not an atheist. I would also put you in the pantheist category, or the agnostic category since you don’t seem so clear on what your definition of your own god is.
I would also say it seems as though you consider yourself atheist because you don’t believe in organised religion and their view of god.
That’s how I interpret what you have said.
Ah, but here is the catch. The definition isn’t that mutable.
Atheism is simply the denial of all things divine. No higher power, period. Be it a rock, a clock, a glock, a stoat, a goat, a turnip the size of a moat.
If you tell the atheist that God is air, they will tell you that air is air and that God is not air as he doesn’t exist. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. But, it remains a pleasant smelling plant. It is what it is.
If you show an atheist a rock and say it is a god or the god, you will be thought a nut, not a prophet. It is because they do not believe in the concept of a higher power. That is the Entire Point of atheism is that you don’t believe. Changing the definition for a semantics debate doesn’t change their basic belief/disbelief that there is no higher power in any form.
Ergo, if you believe in a higher power, you are at least an agnostic as agnostics believe there is something out there, they just don’t know what it is.
As for your statement about atheist functioning off what their definition of a god, then changing the definition wouldn’t matter as they are functioning off their own instead of whatever anybody else thinks.
So the question simply is, do you believe in any form of higher power that you would call a God or the god?
If yes, then you’re not an atheist. Doesn’t quite get any simpler than that nor does it get more complicated.
As for omnipotence, the word itself is a paradox but it technically means all powerful while omniscient means all knowing.
Power doesn’t mean perfect being or even intelligent enough to use it effectively. Sure you could make yourself all knowing but would you know to do so.
Think of it like a metaphorical battery. All that power but no guaranteed will. Same for Omniscience. All knowing doesn’t mean power or will to use it. So they are indeed separate as neither is a guarantee of the other.
Example: Omnipotent rock. All that power but the brain of a rock.
Omniscient rock. All that knowledge but no power to act.
Charro: I’m confused. Anyone who defines God is a theist? Anyone who isn’t a strict materialist is a theist? I’m not sure I see where you’re coming from there. Though I have no issues with being called a pantheist, just trying to understand why you’d put it that way. How would you define a theist (and by extension, God)?
I have made my own definition of god as accurate as I can, and I do not think it matches up to anything that exists. I have also made the best understanding I can of what exists, which I don’t think matches up with the idea of god as I understand it. So I say I don’t believe in God, and am therefore an atheist.
DWN: Omni-anything is a massive intellectual minefield. I prefer to hide behind mysticism, and just call up the ol’ ineffability when I have to. But I have nothing but respect for those who try to make those things make sense.
You define an atheist as someone who believes “there is no higher power in any form”. So you’d say anyone who believes in anything not part of a strictly materialist viewpoint is a theist? What qualifies as a higher power?
It looks to me like my defining god and your defining ‘a higher power’ amount to the same thing, just with different terminology. We decide what we think god is, see if it’s there, decide it isn’t and then call ourselves atheists.
The definition of higher power is rather simple. It is qualified as something that you must have faith in for it to exist to you. God, Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster, the spirit of all things, etc. Those are just labels. The idea of atheism is that none of them exist.
The materialistic definition doesn’t matter as much as the faith component or the supernatural component of the higher being/state.
So if you think there is no God as we define but believe something is out there, then you are agnostic not atheist. You still believe in something beyond yourself and the reality around you.
An atheist doesn’t believe in anything beyond the normal state of existence. That’s pretty much the point.
If you believe in some form of power outside mortal comprehension, then you are at least an agnostic.
As for omnipotence vs omniscience, I simply go for what the words literally mean. The Greek Gods were a great example of the differences. Zeus was considered all powerful but he certainly wasn’t all knowing.
@ death, taken from Wiki on the definition:
However, religious and spiritual belief systems such as forms of Buddhism that do not advocate belief in gods, have been described as atheistic.[7] Although some atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism,[8] rationalism, and naturalism,[9] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[10]
Ah, I see why we disagree. I think that logical scepticism is irrefutable. That is, I think that if you assume nothing, you know nothing. You have to start with an assumption (say, the asumption that you can trust your senses) before you can know anything at all.
By your definition, this means that everything is a higher power to me. I don’t think anything is proven, it is all a matter of faith. I have faith in my own best judgment of what exists, and I have faith that pasta will be tasty tonight.
I would argue that “the normal state of existence” is a set of asumptions, like any other, and to set it apart as special is faulty logic. Not intending a dig at pragmatism here, just explaining why I disagree.
Buddhism is agnostic, not atheistic. Buddha said that the existence of God, or an immortal soul, or an afterlife, isn’t important.
{http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Atheist}
Just as valid as Wiki.
Seth, there’s a massive distance between what Buddha said and what Buddhism is now. There are monotheistic, polytheistic, pantheistic, agnostic and atheist flavours.
“Charro: I’m confused. Anyone who defines God is a theist?”
You’re confused? I’m confused. The word “theism” means “god”. You said you don’t believe in anthropomorphic gods, but you believe in other definitions of god. That makes you a theist. Defining god doesn’t make one a theist. Believing there is a deity out there, in there, somewhere, makes you a theist.
“Anyone who isn’t a strict materialist is a theist?”
No, that’s why we have agnosticism.
“I’m not sure I see where you’re coming from there. Though I have no issues with being called a pantheist, just trying to understand why you’d put it that way.”
I’m reading what you say and you seem to contradict yourself. See above where I said you don’t believe in anthropomorphic gods, but other definitions of god. That precludes you being an atheist.
“How would you define a theist (and by extension, God)?”
As I said, a theist is one who believes in one or more deities. A Deity is a supernatural, supreme, immortal being.
“I have made my own definition of god as accurate as I can, and I do not think it matches up to anything that exists. I have also made the best understanding I can of what exists, which I don’t think matches up with the idea of god as I understand it. So I say I don’t believe in God, and am therefore an atheist.”
This contradicts with your earlier statement that you do believe in non-anthropomorphic god, or gods.
It seems that you are saying you do not believe in the traditional accepted views of god so call yourself an atheist. But you, in your other writings, seem to believe “god” is in all things, or is all things. That makes you a theist, not an atheist.
@seth, just quoting. Though like the article says there is not strict sect that atheists stick to.
Ugh, I do hate when comparisons are flawed.
Faith in your pasta isn’t the same as faith in a higher being. The reasoning is that your faith in your pasta is based on past experience, which is based on trial and error on your part. Perhaps it is faith in the abilities of the one making the pasta as you have tasted their cooking before.
Either way, faith in your dinner is based on a physical manifestation of something you have experienced before or the skill of somebody you have experienced before. You understand the concept of pasta and thus if something goes awry, you can step back and figure out what literally went wrong with the preparation.
With the faith in a higher being, you have no measurable past experience. You haven’t seen, eaten, or smelled the higher being or beings as you have Pasta. The two are incomparable.
Faith is about belief that can’t be measured. You don’t have faith in your pasta, you have the sum of past experiences telling you what outcome to expect.
As for the normal state of things, I am not talking about the hippie dippie make your own reality. I am talking about the realistic expectation that if you drop a rock on Earth while standing rightside up, the rock will fall towards the large mass beneath your feet instead of zip around, pimp slap you, slander your ancestry, then shit on your shoe.
The normal state of things is the basic measurable causes and effects of the giant rock we reside on. I use the word normal as it was the most practical. If anything, it is completely and utterly less special than anything else as it is constantly measured and accounted for.
Every step you take, every drink you consume, every cause and effect you endure is harsh, cold, uncaring reality.
Sure there is something more, this I wholeheartedly believe, but I don’t presume that my belief changes anything under my feet.
So don’t patronize me by saying you have faith in your dinner. You have a sum of past experiences leading you to a reasonable conclusion. Faith is something more, which is why its mysticism has held us for all these years.
So death, you are an agnostic?
Charro: On definitions of God, I’d say that the term in common usage implies anthropomorphism, and I’m fond of basing my definitions in common usage. In my eyes, it’s not god if it’s not anthropomorphic. It might be supernatural, or a supreme being, or perhaps even a deity, but it’s not god.
“It seems that you are saying you do not believe in the traditional accepted views of god so call yourself an atheist. But you, in your other writings, seem to believe “god” is in all things, or is all things. That makes you a theist, not an atheist.”
I base my definition of god off of tradtional accepted views. I don’t think that god is all things, I think that all things are one, which I wouldn’t call god. Hence atheistic (no god) monism (all things are one).
Some definitions of god makes ‘all things’ have to be god, which is why by those definitions atheistic monist is a contradiction in terms, and I’d be classified as a pantheist. I disagree with those definitions, but have no objection to being understood in terms of them.
Nope, I’m a cephlanecrodedrapanpizzatheist.
Yes, I identify as agnostic. I think something is definitely out there but I can’t presume that it gives a damn no matter what we do.
I apologise if I came off as patronizing. That wasn’t my intent, I was trying (badly) to explain how the two, in my opinion, are alike.
The basis on which I trust my past experience IS faith. I don’t unconditionally believe in my senses. I have reason to doubt them. So, when I choose to act in accordance with the evidence they present, I am acting on faith. I can’t prove they’re right, so I have to judge. That judgment will be informed by the sum of my past experiences. But it is still a judgement. I am deciding that it is likely that things will stay like they are.
Besides, I’m the one cooking, and faith in my skills would be wildly misplaced.
In the same way, when I say ‘I have faith in my best judgement of what exists’, I am expressing a faith in my reasoning. I am looking at the logical arguments available to me and making a judgement based on the sum of my past experiences in the field, and my best analysis, as to what is likely to be the case. Just because I’ve experienced one with my senses and the other with my intellect doesn’t change anything. If anything, I probably have more faith in my intellect than my senses.
I do have a hippie dippie view that the ground under your feet is there for you because you believe it is. You could choose not to believe in it, and it would not exist for you. That’s insanity. On a much smaller scale, there are all sorts of verifiable cases in everybody’s life where what they expected affected what happened, because of how they approached it and what they were predisposed to see. Materialism isn’t necessarily right, it’s a point of view.
Unfortunately, reality isn’t what you make of it. It was there before you and will exist after you. Sure you can interpret until you are blue in the face but a lot of it boils down to what we laugh on Engrish.com. Believing that the ground would stop existing if you stopped believing in it is a certain level of arrogance that I have always found laughable.
The daydream isn’t the ground beneath your feet, it is the thoughts in your head that tell you they matter.
However, you are again clouding hypothesis with faith. With your experience, you can conclude that with a certain degree of possible failure that you can follow directions and come to a conclusion that will be a good dinner. You can predict this because others have done it. You can measure this because there are volumes to measure and account for. If anything, cooking is a science experiment that you eat when you are done.
You can’t really measure faith and expect accurate predictions. There is no formula or literal documentation. Even something like the bible is a collaborated effort of men telling what they feel is right and true, and a lot of it contradicts.
Either way, while you may have more faith in your intellect over your senses, you are still following a predetermined formula to make the pasta with reasonable expectation of outcome and if you are wrong, you can deduce what steps you messed up.
You don’t do the same with the idea of faith. Faith is there because you believe. Pasta is there because you made it happen.
Please don’t talk like Materialism is a fact. It is an opinion. To state your unproven opinions as fact is highly arrogant, and offensive to boot. Try proving that the ground exists anywhere outside your head, and you’ll see that there’s a lot more going on here than you might assume. And if you want to dismiss a history of debate between some of the most intelligent people who have ever lived, well, that’s your call.
I follow a prescribed formula of logic to arrive at my conclusions regarding existence. I don’t assume, or make leaps of faith. I apply rationality to the data available to me, and see what I can prove. The faith is in my ability to apply rationality, aka my faith in my intellect, and in my assumptions.
This process of rationality lead me to conclude that you can’t actually prove anything beyond all doubt, because you can always doubt the methods of proof. So I decided to use the best methods of analysis I have (logic) to assess different assumptions and evaluate the structures of thought that arise from them. I then chose the assumptions that seemed to me to lead to the best structures, and went with them.
That’s what I mean when I say everything is faith. You start with an assumption, and then build from there. So it’s all built on your faith in that assumption. But the quality of the methods used for building must be the highest, and you don’t choose them on faith. Which is why the process of arriving at conclusions is not faith based, it is the premises that set you down that road that are.
Okay… So we are both standing on the same ground and we are both breathing air.
I’m glad we share the same opinion.
As for the intellectuals who have debated the existence of the ground, tell me where they are now? Either they are dead, mostly likely cremated or otherwise put into… The ground. Or they are alive and residing on… The ground.
So I am glad that we are ALL sharing the same opinion. However, I will state this for the record.
Opinions allude to choice and thus it stands to reason that choice would indicate multiple choices and thus multiple answers. So I ask you, if the ground is an opinion, how come we all still have this same “opinion” no matter how much it is debated?
Perhaps consensual reality is not necessarily the same as reality.
Either way, it messes with Purple’s point as despite everything, we are all on the ground. That is, assuming that none of them were launched into space.
The only real way for Purple to convince me of anything here is to disprove what I am standing on. There is a drastically inherent flaw to philosophy courses as pretty much everybody I have seen going through them or coming out of them believe they form their own reality. Then they tell you that the ground is only as real as you make it. Unfortunately they are all stuck on the same ground so I can only just laugh at them when they get to this point.
I’m not the one saying I will the ground into existence but I am the arrogant one. Classic.
I don’t share your opinion. You have dismissed all alternatives as at first ‘hippie dippie’ (which I though was pleasantly endearing), then ‘arrogant’ (which I found lightly offensive), then ‘laughable’ (which I object to). I have asked you to be polite. I’ll keep asking, athough you’ll probably keep ignoring me.
So you’re standing on the gound . How do you KNOW that? For sure? Because you see it? Feel it? Have your senses never lied to you? It is inconcievable that they could be misled?
For that matter, what is the ground? You have an experience of it, sure, but that’s all. You can’t tell if that experience was caused by ‘the ground’. And you can’t tell anything about it, because you have no means to be sure that experience actually relates to anything at all. All you have is a faith in this link between your experience and this unknown, unknowable ‘ground’ floating around somewhere out there.
So tell me about the ground.
The ground is the concrete, top soil, crust, and other geological elements that constitute the floor beneath me. It is that which has shown my blood when it has been knocked from me. It is what caught me when I fell. It is what I saw seeds planted into and watched life creep back out of.
It is painfully knowable. It will be there until it is removed when this planet blows up. It isn’t floating out there somewhere, it is right beneath you.
As for it being a concept, no it really isn’t. Fall down and not get hurt. Hurl yourself from the top of a flight of stairs and then disbelieve. You do that and send us the youtube of it as proof.
If my opinion isn’t fact than it will be easy, painfully easy, to show me that it is just opinion. Also, what are you typing from, what is that residing on, what are you residing on?
So by all means, I give my answer and while my senses can lie, they also can tell the truth and will do so when provided with consistent and measurable stimuli.
So the question is, what do you call what we are standing on or my chair is standing on in my case? Are you floating? Are you merely a figment of the internet? Are you laying down, sitting up, standing at attention? Please do tell me what is that hard substance beneath your feet and why you think our senses are lying?
Allow me to step in as a mediator if you please. You two are replicating one of the oldest arguments in the book. That between a realist and a an Epistemologist.
Here is the argument.
The argument from illusion is an argument for the existence of sense-data. It is posed as a criticism of direct realism. Naturally occurring illusions best illustrate the argument’s points, a notable example concerning a stick: I have a stick, which appears to me to be straight, but when I hold it underwater it seems to bend and distort. I know that the stick is straight and that its apparent flexibility is as a result of seeing it through the water, yet I cannot change the mental image I have of the stick as being bent. Since the stick is not in fact bent its appearance can be described as an illusion. Rather than directly perceiving the stick, which would entail our seeing it as it truly is, we must instead perceive it indirectly, via a sense-datum. This mental representation does not tell us anything about the stick’s true properties, which remain inaccessible to us.
With this being the case, however, how can we be said to be certain of the stick’s initial straightness? If all we perceive is sense-data then the stick’s apparent initial straightness is just as likely to be false as its half-submerged bent appearance. Therefore, the argument runs, we can never gain any knowledge about the stick, as we only ever perceive a sense-datum, and not the stick itself.
Retrieved from “http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_illusion”
Categories: Epistemology
So what purp is saying basically is that you have been taken in by the illusion of what you think the ground should be like. You are arguing the traits you believe it should have. He is going from the more theoretical side where he even questions the existence of the perceived ground. That is where you 2 differ. Not that much. One trusts his senses, the other says the senses cannot measure the truth only what one believes to be the truth.
I hope I have summed you both up correctly.
I’m not saying our senses are lying. I’m saying we don’t know, we cannot know. I am saying that neither of us can be sure. You can choose your standard of proof, and if experience is good enough for you, then I guess there really might be a mine under every loose stone a ptsd vet passes, or the abused girl’s father really might be outside her door every single night, even though he died years ago. I hold the truth to a higher standard.
I don’t know if there is a real ground. All I know is I have this experience, that I expect will behave a certain way. It comforms to my expectations. My belief has no effect on the ‘actual’ ground, if it exists. It just determines if I will see ground.
Truth is not a democracy. It is not determined by what most people think, or what we see most of the time. It is determined by facts and by logic. And facts and logic will not prove for you that the ground exists.
Thankyou emperor, that is indeed the argument I was putting forward. I enjoy philospohy, and I enjoy writing, so I was taking some pleasure in putting it in my own words, as best I can. But that is exactly what I am saying. It is not a closed question, debate is very much alive and different perspectives have arguments for and against them. That’s all.
@Emperor, Leader of the Resistance: Thank you for pointing out the obvious and mediating nothing. I definitely appreciate the condescension of assuming I don’t know what argument is being used.
I get it, trust me, I do. I just don’t agree with it. Thus the discussion. Next time, actually add something instead of pointing out the obvious like it will magically make us stop.
As for the idea of it all being an illusion, that still boils down to proof. I really am reasonable. Show me proof and I will be happy to take on the information and process it like any rational person.
However, stating that I am delusional with no more proof than theories amounts to nothing in a debate. The sad and morbid fact, one I find amusing, is that I could technically bash somebody’s skull into my “opinion” as it were.
You also forget that the stick is still straight, no matter the refraction of the water. You can pull it from the water or submerge your head and look at the stick. Either dispels the illusion.
So what needs to happen is proof that I am delusional. If the ground is unreal, go through it. My petty little mind will see you go through it and realize that it isn’t real, then perhaps I will go through.
Conclusion: Saying reality isn’t real without proof other than empty theories is poor debating tactics. It is why I find it laughable.
Why is it that theory is necessarially empty, and the only thing you can trust is empirical proof? You are saying ’show me my kind of proof’. There is none. My whole argument is that nothing can be proved or disproved, in that way. I am presenting you with another kind of proof, which you are dismissing out of hand because it’s ‘just a theory’.
Okay Purple, now you are really insulting my intelligence.
You’re comparing people who have been hurt or traumatized to the “belief” that the ground isn’t there. Um, no. That’s disgusting cruel to those who have actually been traumatized. The little girl is functioning off fear from past experiences, she knows it isn’t real, however her mind won’t let go of the memory so she reacts like it will happen despite her mind telling her otherwise. Same for the soldier, he knows there isn’t mines but he has that trauma and fear that still grips at him.
I know pointlessness of using past experiences but I will go ahead anyway. In college, I was actually stuck in a situation where I wouldn’t get a decent meal for about four days at a time. Then I would walk 15 blocks to school and 15 blocks back with whatever weight was on my back. I was already thin when I went and then lost 40 lbs on top of it. I was dying, slowly. My dormmates left for a weekend when I had brought some Romero classics so I had the zombie fun all to myself. However, I snapped and for 30 hours, I believed I was the last person on Earth, couldn’t sleep or barely even move. Eventually I heard talking outside and it snapped. I understand the illusion and what fear gripped my head. Unfortunately the events of my earlier life had set me up for such paranoia. The abuse, the sexual assault, the loss of time that I still experience. All of it left me with a paranoia.
I honestly do understand the idea of something out to get me despite all the understanding in my rational mind that I shouldn’t be paranoid. My experiences and thus my illusion tells me otherwise. I am fortunate that I can see that illusion but it doesn’t stop the actual reality that I can still see.
The sad and very annoying thing is that I already tried to explain that the truth doesn’t care. Reality, as it were, is very knowable to even a point where you wish you could cut off all your senses just so you can stop it all.
So don’t give me your unknowable truth speech or how there is no way to know. Yes there is. Pull the stick from the water, submerge your head, fall down some stairs, get stabbed, etc etc etc.
Truth doesn’t give a damn, reality doesn’t give a damn, and they certainly don’t bend to the ideas of opinion. I never said it was a democracy. I said fall down some stairs. Even if it is an illusion, reality can still be seen by interacting with it. Thus the stick from the water or the submerging of your eyes to see the truth.
Trauma and the ground are different things. I’m waiting for the video.
Get it or not death, you showed no acknowledgment of what he was attempting to converse. There is no need to snap at someone who is only attempting to bring the emotions a little lower. Please don’t go quoting condescension when you go and respond with such a pious tone like that. I was merely alluding to the argument which he was basing his argument off of, not what you two were actually arguing about.
Funny how since I did not back-up your side with a quote how angry you were and how respectful he was.
“You also forget that the stick is still straight, no matter the refraction of the water. You can pull it from the water or submerge your head and look at the stick. Either dispels the illusion.”
No the point that one can perceive the stick, the same stick in two ways without altering the stick is what makes us question which form is the true correct form.
So what needs to happen is proof that I am delusional. If the ground is unreal, go through it. My petty little mind will see you go through it and realize that it isn’t real, then perhaps I will go through.
Proof here is the vibrational theory. Yes it is a theory, just like what you are defending, (realism).
Conclusion: Saying reality isn’t real without proof other than empty theories is poor debating tactics. It is why I find it laughable.
Assuming and not questioning is the real laughable act. Just accepting the reality that you perceive is real without tangible beyond a doubt proof (hint: that’s impossible) is just as incorrect. The thing is, at least he is questioning, not sitting comfortable and pompously on a throne of an I know it already stance.
If you’re experienced a completely convincing delusion, what’s stopping you making the mental leap that you can be convinced of a delusion? For all I know I am lying in a hospital in a vegitative state. I can’t prove it one way or the other. I know the limitations of my mind, and I acknowledge them. I admit that I can’t be sure. Hell, I can provide proof (like you just did) of the many ways the mind can be decieved.
Maybe you see me doing that as horiffic because you see one as ludicrous and one as real, and think I’m denigrating the real one. I’m trying to make you see that you can’t pick and choose, that if one is real then you have to accept that the other might be real.
You believe in the ground. You will never see anyone vanish through it because of that belief. The ground is real. No-one will vanish through it because of that. Both are perfectly reasonable explanations of the facts. Why is it that one is unacceptable?
Maybe you think that this is just the product of a sheltered mind, that I dont know the world and so don’t accept it’s reality. I’ve felt my body start burning muscle for fuel because I wasn’t feeding it. Maybe you think I’m hiding in comfortable theory, that doubting the world makes it easier to bear. Knowing that you can never be sure, that your deepest convictions are just what you’re keen on, that you might really be alone, can be a hard thing to bear.
I have shown you what I think are compelling arguments for my case. I have tried to do so in a civil manner. You have chosen to ignore them and demand the only kind of proof you’ll accept. Please try and see that you’re the one insisting that his perception is right, and I’m saying I might be right, that there isn’t absolute proof one way or the other.
Well said purp.
Reality is subjective anyway.
You know, my mom is a schizophrenic and when she was in her full blown psychosis, she was convinced that there was a mind reading machine orbiting the Earth and that there were messages in license plates. That was her reality.
Well, in my reality, there are no mind reading machines and no license plate messages. But there was no amount of convincing to tell my mom that my reality was more real than hers.
At any rate, I see both sides here. I’m inclined to side with DWN, because even though I know reality is subjective, it’s MY reality and I will stubbornly stick to it until someone proves me otherwise. And in my reality, the ground is the ground and it will always be there, because I have proved that with trial and error.
Those are my $.02
I will just outline this and let you both pick and choose what you think applies to you.
1. You’re still being condescending.
2. I already knew what Purple was saying. There was no need to dicker or pet him over the fact that I knew what argument it was.
3. You were still stating the obvious and expecting me to thank you for it. What exactly were you expecting?
4. My annoyance was that you didn’t add to the argument but apparently expected to be thanked and considered it moderation.
5. You assume I have never questioned my existence just because I didn’t come to the same conclusion. And you call me arrogant. Wow.
6. People have actually come out of comas. Have a chat with them and get back to me before you make that assumption.
7. People do vanish through the ground. See quicksand and other geological phenomenon.
8. You belabor under the comfortable assumption that your theory can never be proven or disproven, therefore I have to be the ignorant one. Sit in your tower of theory and assume I can never understand yet I am the arrogant one.
9. The problem is that I am willing to accept that I might be wrong. Fall through the ground, believe it or not, I am not as closed minded as you think nor has my life been as mundane as you both assume. Nor do either of you believe that I ever questioned existence nor do you believe that I might be right and that what you see is painfully what you get.
So have either of you, instead of patting each other on the back and believing yourselves wiser than others, ever stop to try and figure out how to dispel the illusion? Have either of you even tried? What burns me is that I am honestly willing to take that leap of faith and test what I believe and make sure of what I know. Have either of you tested your beliefs or shall you continue to tell me how I just don’t get your circular reasoning and can never get it?
Quick trying to wow me with theory and actually tell me what you have done that helps reinforce your belief in something else. I’m interested in experiments, experiences, and actual tests of self, not the tao of how not to believe.
“reality is subjective anyway”
That’s everything I’m trying to say, right there. Everyone sees their own reality. I have no issues with whatever anyone else sees. I just get my hackles up when someone starts calling my reality laughable, especially when it’s someone who’s proven themselves intelligent and amiable in the past.
And I find my hackles get raised when I am confronted with arrogance in assuming that everything I believe is an illusion without actually backing the claim.
If I walked up and said that the sky would fall tomorrow after turning into a smiling face shaped from the anus of George Carlin, I would expect that I would be asked to present more than my feelings on the matter.
You make a statement and are asked for proof. You give theory and expect it to jive. I counter said theory and all I get is that I can’t understand.
Am I the only person not seeing this as annoying debate tactics?
Ok. I did not commence the condescending response, I merely was outlining both arguments. I have done mediating before in arguments, that is one of the main jobs. I am not to be attacked as that just drags me into the argument. Which you did and proceed to do.
Here comes my example forthwith: I just jumped. I flew through the ground. You don’t see me do it, you see me land. Purple sees my fall through. Do you see why I can’t prove to you. As open minded as you wish to be you have your present reservations of what reality allows and won’t no matter how hard you try let those go.
Now, you actually think I sided with him, that assumption is a horrible one. I also believe in reality. I like it, I appreciate that every time I take a step my foot comes into contact with the ground. Sometime I think about the possibility that I did not get up and this is all a dream, yes even though I am thinking about this, it doesn’t mean my mind is not tricking me. I suppress those thoughts as I enjoy being at peace. In a philosophical debate, much like this one I let it out. To keep a light tone to it all I thank people for their responses, respect them, if I do not agree I take it with a grain of salt and know they truly do not intent to offend me. You seem to be stacking up the ad hominem attacks which leads me to believe you are either frustrated or taking it to the personal level. I am not acting arrogant, I was calling you out for your attacks. You dismiss what I said saying I was not adding anything to the conversation, ok granted I was summing up, as I even stated in the end. Then you proceeded to tell me to shut my trap if I couldn’t add anything. That good sir is why I called you arrogant. You believe yourself to be in control of the conversation and no one unless they abide by your unseen rule may interject. I proceeded to ridicule your view as you have shown little respect for what I have had to say. I am a believer in the golden rule and well you are getting the butt end of it. Now I will go back to respecting all you have to say again pending I receive similar treatment. I am sure you are a good person, I will not reciprocate the character attacks and will continue to converse with you.
I never expected to be thanked, I was simply appalled at how you responded. That is all, I hope we remain on good terms.
It’s fair to say I’ve been condescending. I’ve already apologised for it once. You inclined to apologise for insulting me yet?
It’s hard to accept that you can be familiar with the ins and outs of metaphysics and not have some level of doubt as to what you think is the case. That does in fact appear to be true; it’s just very, very unusual.
I have been stating my case over and over because you seem to have decided you can say what is and is not admissible. I object to that. Logic isn’t for you to discard unless you can give me a damn good reason. I don’t ignore life and our experiences.
You’re arrogant because you refuse to accept that any conclusion other than yours might possibly be right. And I’m responding poorly to it because you’re saying that what I believe is certainly wrong, is in fact laughably stupid.
The fact that something can’t be proven doesn’t make it comfortable or easy. Your reluctance to even admit anyone else might be right shows just how hard people will fight against the idea that they can’t be sure.
If I knew a way to be sure, do you think I wouldn’t have tried it? I have spent most of my life trying to understand myself and the world I am in. Don’t denigrate my beliefs because they come from somewhere different than yours. I have seen beauty as profound as anything in the ‘real world’ in a line of logic.
And the idea that you’re ‘willing’ to test your belief, on the condition that someone does the impossible, is absurd. You are fully convinced it will never happen. No matter how subjective reality might be, there’s no way I can make you see something you refuse to believe is possible. Whichever of us is right, you know that what you’re asking for is totally impossible.
If all you’re willing to believe in is “experiments, experiences, and actual tests of self”, is it really a surprise when your experiments turn up empiricism? You’re assuming your conclusion.
And don’t insult Taoism. There is more beauty and truth in the Tao te Ching than I know how to say.
“Do you see why I can’t prove to you. As open minded as you wish to be you have your present reservations of what reality allows and won’t no matter how hard you try let those go.”
“I have done mediating before in arguments, that is one of the main jobs.”
“I am not to be attacked as that just drags me into the argument.”
These statements are why I can’t take you as anything but arrogant. You also assume that you are above debating because you say you are. I don’t recall asking for you to referee thus I don’t hold myself to your rules. You insist on the same level of control you are accusing me of assuming. So which one of us is kettle and which is pot.
Since you want respect, I will ask this. At what point did I ask for you to referee? So if you didn’t ask for permission before chastising me for rules you decided needed to be implimented, how am I to respect you when you didn’t respect me enough to either butt out or contribute?
Free advice, Emperor. It isn’t helpful because you say it is nor do you have any more right than me to control a debate. I noted your assumptions above and my response was based on them. When you want respect, lose the high horse. I have no interest in people who feel the need to condescend and then try to put me in my place because I don’t appreciate the interference.
Respect is earned and you sure as hell haven’t earned mine yet. At least Purple is actively debating as I informally asked of him when I started my responses.
“Do you see why I can’t prove to you. As open minded as you wish to be you have your present reservations of what reality allows and won’t no matter how hard you try let those go.” This is not arrogant, it is a truth, hard as I try I cannot let go of my perceived reality as it has been drilled into me since the dawn of time.
“I have done mediating before in arguments, that is one of the main jobs.I am not to be attacked as that just drags me into the argument.” This statement was referncing the outlines of a mediator’s job. Attacking the mediator, whether invited or not, who meant no harm in the first place only has a negative impact on the message you are trying to transmit. Onlookers see that he just attacked someone who didn’t provoke him.
“These statements are why I can’t take you as anything but arrogant”.
Those statements are not of arrogance but are of respondance to your perpetration of arrogance.
You also assume that you are above debating because you say you are.
No I was saying that I was not a direct participant in this debate until you attacked me and dragged me into it.
“I don’t recall asking for you to referee thus I don’t hold myself to your rules. You insist on the same level of control you are accusing me of assuming. So which one of us is kettle and which is pot.”
“Since you want respect, I will ask this.”
Respect should always be granted and taken away based upon further investigation. Well at least that is the way I approach situations.
“When you want respect, lose the high horse. I have no interest in people who feel the need to condescend and then try to put me in my place because I don’t appreciate the interference. ”
Allow me to step in as a mediator if you please. Please re-read before you post your lies like this. The proof was there all along.
I am not the one who was riding high. You are the one who continues to dash away anything sent your way that does not coincide with what you already hold true.
Respect is earned and you sure as hell haven’t earned mine yet. At least Purple is actively debating as I informally asked of him when I started my responses.
Well, earning your respect doesn’t seem to be an easy task as I have attempted to make real contributions and you continue to reflect back on that mediator comment. Though if you continue to attack the character of the person you are arguing with, you loose credibility. Along with that, they will not want to garner your respect as along with your word it means less and less with more and more ad hominem attacks.
@Purple: Here is the deal and the crux of why I find your beliefs laughable.
“And the idea that you’re ‘willing’ to test your belief, on the condition that someone does the impossible, is absurd.”
If it is impossible, then how are you questioning reality in the slightest? If you admit it is impossible, then how it is opinion? You aren’t being consistent and that is insulting to both of our intellects.
I accept the idea that I might be wrong. In all reality, I consider our existence closer to Lovecraft than the bible. Assuming there is anything worth believing in the first place. People fall through the ground all the time. I suggest studying geology but that is just me being snide.
Here is the problem. You assume that I can never understand but you also already state that it is impossible. So how are you any more or less openminded than myself?
Now think on this because I am not a classroom ready for a stock answer. I want experiences. You have only told me of how you have starved. That doesn’t conflict with reality so try again. I’ve told you of when I had my reality messed with.
You seem to be purposely avoiding what I am asking and that is why I am avoiding an apology. You simply refuse to understand which is funny considering how much I am being told that I don’t get it.
Here is another experience of mine, one I hope you find as funny as I found it. Numerous times in my life, I have had honest to [insert higher power] premonitions. Seen the damn future.
You know what I saw? I saw me sitting on a damn raised brick area for plants while my parents fixed a flat tire. Another time, I saw me seeing some random video game in a store that was mispriced. There are a couple of others but they all, every last one of them, boil down to stupid premonitions. Visions of things in the future that had no meaning or consequence for which I had no ability to act upon and only barely realized what I was seeing when I finally got there.
The place I used to live in before college was a place that was used a senior home facility. Crazy things would happen all the time, but almost always while I was away. Things falling off shelves while being watched to my sister being trapped in a bathroom. Even Lynn was groped all over her body without me touching her. She freaked and left the room. I saw the terror in her eyes so I don’t doubt what happened to her.
My problem with you is that you tell me that I am wrong but then when I ask for proof, you tell me that I am asking the impossible when YOU are the one telling me that all is possible.
So stay consistent and actually produce what you have done to test your reality instead of trying to wow me with nothing. I can actually respect examples if you actually give them.
Finally, and this is important. I don’t believe or pretend to believe the ins and outs of metaphysics. There is no grasping all of it. Reality is mutable but constant and what we know may be a lie or we may think it a lie just to keep from screaming. However, if you want to question it, don’t expect theory to impress. Actually share what you know, not what you were taught.
“You know what I saw? I saw me sitting on a damn raised brick area for plants while my parents fixed a flat tire. Another time, I saw me seeing some random video game in a store that was mispriced. There are a couple of others but they all, every last one of them, boil down to stupid premonitions. Visions of things in the future that had no meaning or consequence for which I had no ability to act upon and only barely realized what I was seeing when I finally got there.”
So you mean like déjà vu? If you do, join the club, almost like my life has a predetermined pattern it must follow.
I can’t show you what you believe to be impossible because you won’t see it. There are several realities here. Your perception, my perception, and ‘objective reality’ (if it exists). If I’m right, your perception will not include things you hold to be impossible. Because it is your perception. If you are right, it will not include them because they are impossible. Either way, see that what you are saying can’t happen under either system. The fact that it can’t be done is evidence for neither, since both have rational explanations for it. This is perfectly consistent – I’m just trying to account for both sides, not saying both are true, which would be contradictory.
In no way do I assume that you can’t understand. I am saying that you are actively preventing yourself from understanding. I say this because your conclusion is in your premise, because you pick and choose what kinds of evidence you will accept, and because all of this makes the outcome a foregone conclusion.
I’m not really happy discussing my reality here, but I guess for the sake of argument I’ll give you a dose. I am agoraphobic. I am afraid of other people in general, and exposure to them in particular. I am largely recovered these days, but when I let my guard down I still have anxieties about anyone and everyone around me. I know that this is irrational, has no basis in experience or logic. But it has been ground into me by early experiences, and I cannot shake it, try as I might. One day maybe.
Theory is more comfortable to me because I’m familiar with it. I also take exception to the wholesale casting off of theory, because I have seen how much truth can be found in logic, and how much suffering and learning the hard way can be avoided if we stop to think about it (sadly, often after the fact). I picked up my first philosophical book when I was six. What I believe is not what I’ve been taught, or what I’ve absorbed. It is the product of my mind working as best I can make it. It might not be experience of the sort you’re talking about, but that doesn’t make it invalid.
I’m doing my “I like smart people” happy dance now. Tra la la, tra la la, frack it was a long trek back up here to find the reply button.
So, um, what about free will then?
@Purple: First of all, you finally did what I asked and I am sorry for what harm I have caused you. I wish you had told me about being agoraphobic from the beginning, then I could understand better why you resisted and why you were so determined to stick to theory.
Now, here is the secret to why I hate theory in the discussion of reality, especially when you trying to discount somebody else’s reality or make them question it.
Simply put, you aren’t expressing your own reality, merely somebody else’s hypothesis. If all reality is subjective, then why would you try to convince me of this by using somebody’s reality besides your own? Hopefully you can see the contradiction and thus it would annoy somebody as… Sure, I will go with arrogant as myself.
If it is any consolation, I hate leaving my home. I don’t believe I have it as bad as you but I honestly believe that anything can happen to me. And worse is that I believe I would have it coming at least 90% of the time. I have daymares whenever I leave the house, of all sorts of things going terribly wrong. Flashes and visions, just enough to chill my blood while I try to compose myself so I don’t get carried off to some hospital to die in a pool of my own fluids.
Perhaps part of my problem is that my paranoia has me believing that truth and reality have an absolute that doesn’t care about our presumptions. Perhaps the ground is there just to spite us and we really, truly have no control on how it all ends.
You and I are possibly two sides of the same twisted coin. You believe that reality is questionable because your reality is horrid. (assumption, apologies) I believe reality is horrid but that it is perception I must question. Either way, I understand the Why of your beliefs and thus will leave you in peace.
Here is my parting suggestion. If you want to discuss the power of the mind over reality and add examples without adding yourself, I suggest looking up medical curiosities. In particular, check out the pregnant women who weren’t pregnant, only THOUGHT they were.
@Emperor: The frustrating thing is I would wake from those annoying clear dreams wondering WTF. Then I would endure the reality weeks later and get annoyed when I realized what I was feeling. Yes, deja vu is correct but I did have the dreams beforehand so I don’t know if that adds any wrinkles to the terminology.
Seth, NOOOOOO. You would first have to establish which reality we are going to accept. From there we would have to go forth to decide if we like the deterministic view or the availability of choice. On that note, the choices presented do they branch further, is backtracking allowed. etc etc. Then again bringing up determinism defeats your question, so one alleyway that is now closed.
One can believe he is acting of free will, but is he acting of someone else’s volition. Is free will naturally inherent or is it allotted or given. Then one can also take into account the limitations currently on our present state of what we perceive as free will. For example, we cannot do anything we so please, there are laws. I would also go as far as to take into account the possibility of a higher force, similar to the law of karma.
Oh hell no, Seth. I know I am not part of your happy dance reason so I am going to avoid the headache that is having the free will conversation again…
So this is me, fleeing to go kill things in my dull existence where I have ground and video games and sex. Though with how my day has gone, I am doubting the possible reality of sex tonight.
Okay, we’ve covered free will pretty well, on to the lighting round! Does a Chinese Room know Chinese? You have three seconds to answer in the form of a pun.
No harm done, I just got a little worked up is all. My life isn’t horrid, just a bit tough sometimes. I’m a hell of a lot better off than I used to be, and even that was fairly mild compared to strong cases. And now I can go sleep, it’s about damn time.
Just to clarify – my theory is my own, and it defines my reality. I live by what I believe, or at least I try to. It means more to me than many of the things I have done and people I have met. Of course my thoughts are built on those of others, but the combination of ideas, how they come together to form a structure of thought, is mine.
That was what got under my skin more than anything else – the idea that theory is impersonal, that you can’t own it, or that it’s not really important, or that it doesn’t say anything about me.
‘Night, catch you another time.
Emperor, hope to see you around sometime too. Been fun.
And, um, what the heck, DWN? Do you honestly think I think you aren’t smart?! Whoah dude, back up a step. I know you are smart.
If a chinese room were able to speak, it would speak chinese. If it has no means of communication, silence is its language of choice.
I think I am very happy that we finally all are in accordance. As to the definition, deja vu simply goes as far as translating it to french. “Already seen” I don’t think it necessarily fudges the definition of what you experienced.
Death, if I may, I happen to find myself in a therapist role with my friends a multitude of times. Yes I am only a twenty year old but something inside me tells me I am in fact an old soul. The part that scares you the most outside, is it the variables? By that I mean, do you only feel comfortable in situations in which you can control? We may have similarities there. I don’t fear, but instead overanalyze situations. A many branched tree of plausible outcomes springs into my mind all the time. It is scary to myself to think of how my brain is firing off what can happen and possible escape routes planned. I will provide you with a link that I have found best explains what I am trying to say right now. {http: //xkcd.com /439/} and {http: //xkcd.com /337/}
Another xkcd fan, cool. I like Randall’s earlier, weirder, more abstract stuff. Red Spiders, odd landscape sketches, boys floating about in barrels.
I am partial to his math and physics puns, though an old favo(u)rite is the hobbies collection.
His Verizon calculus is the ultimate in pwnage, though I do love the juxtaposition of the heavy math with the romanticism. He’s awesome. And he really does have a room (or a partial room) full of balls to play in.
Those little red spiders are like the coolest things – remember being a kid and you could smear that tiny thing so far? Heh.
I posted one of his complaints recently that the media kept reporting on huge numbers without bothering to explain what they meant – as in millions compared to billions compared to trillions – one of my own pet peeves. Almost anyone can find something to love in xkcd.
Ps Holding people accountable is always appealing. (People and deities)
Actually, slan, I’ve had plenty of those thoughts as well. Lately I believe in God, and I believe He seriously screwed me and my wife over. No idea why, but He did.
You know what’s funny?
I have no trouble believing that all deities exist, at least in an animistic-spirit sense.
I don’t believe any of them are all-knowing and all-powerful, necessarily, but there’s no reason why they can’t all be hanging around spiritually, like patron saints or spirit guides or what-have-you.
…Maybe I’ve just been hanging out with hippies too long.
God is Obi-Wan Kenobi???????????
Well, let’s be fair. Documentary filmmakers rarely try to give you the whole truth. They will show you exactly what they want you to see. That’s probably the case with this film, and yes, I’ve seen it. It does scary the heck out of me, sorta, but no more than the radical leftists in this country. The film was humours and scary at the same time. I just have to remember that there are more sensible people in this country than either the radical right depicted in this film or the radical left that I see all the time.
Can you prove the point about Documentary filmmakers or do all you have is the example of a few bad eggs which you’re using to paint an entire body of people? Then again, we all know how every Priest is a pedophile…
Few things can even try to accomplish as much stupidity as religion results into.
So why don’t we put THEM in charge?
weren’t they?
every vegan parent I’ve known (quite a few) has/makes huge efforts to make sure that their kids are getting all the nutrients they need (dieticians, doctors, supplements when necessary). I heard the one news story about the “vegan” parents whose child died – eating nothing more than cod liver oil – which of course isn’t vegan anyway :/ also, vegans are not necessarily liberal, though I’d say the majority are.
“You can safely assume that you’ve created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” ~~Anne Lamott
Here is another one
“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” – Susan B. Anthony
“God is dead” -Friedrich Nietzsche
“I prefer opium” -pittypat
Don’t bogart, please.