Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Silat on February 24, 2006, 02:50:04 AM
-
I think this about covers it....................
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/242_1140770836_historyofreligion.jpg)
-
:D
-
Nailed it :) And religion hasn't evolved much since IMO.
Guess that's why they reject the evolution theory so much?
-
a nice lefty thread ... lol
have a good day fellas :)
-
Eagler, put down that rock, you'll hurt yourself...
-
Don't worry. Eagler won't do anything till Seagoon blows his whistle.
(http://cargo.ship-of-fools.com/Features99/Features/BrianPic1.jpg)
On second thought organized religion does have some conveniences......
http://www.beertutor.com/video/jehovah.avi
-
Though I am not a religous person, I've noticed that the behavior of those who go out of their way to slam religions (those religions that don't actively sponsor murder in the radical sense) have a similiar pattern. These people usually have some pretty severe issues in their own lives. They can't stand to see someone who is devoted and follow guidelines. This person usually has not achieved self-actualization in Maslows theory of heirarchy and this person tends to subliminally doubt ones self but masks it with overconfidence on the surface.
But don't let that get in the way of your back-slapping thread, boys. ;)
-
But Ripsnort, with the exception of a couple of far eastern religions. They ALL have sponsered murder in the past.
Better by far to say that NO one is allowed to kill, hurt, maim, degrade or outcast anyone for religious reasons.
What you do with your individual personal belief is your business.
When you organize it into a religion it becomes the worlds business.
-
"These people usually have some pretty severe issues in their own lives."
Coming from you that is absolutely priceless.
-
Ripsnort, are you offended by a caricature of religion?
Just askin'
-
Originally posted by Eagler
a nice lefty thread ... lol
have a good day fellas :)
What makes it a lefty thread?
-
silat... are you rabid about spirituality too or just organized religion or.... do you form your beliefs based soley on what your friends think is cool?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
But Ripsnort, with the exception of a couple of far eastern religions. They ALL have sponsered murder in the past.
Better by far to say that NO one is allowed to kill, hurt, maim, degrade or outcast anyone for religious reasons.
What you do with your individual personal belief is your business.
When you organize it into a religion it becomes the worlds business.
Key word here is "Actively" and "Radical" in my post, Ghosth. I've not lived in the past, just the present (circa 1960) so I'm speaking from experience.
When one seeks out non-confrontational religions and attacks them, they have serious issues.
-
Originally posted by Westy
"These people usually have some pretty severe issues in their own lives."
Coming from you that is absolutely priceless.
Surely you can do better than that, Westy?
-
I was called an "infidel" by a fella, and I said "thank you". He didnt say anthing more after that.
-
I find no harm in telling a catholic joke or two, a monty python skit about religion...stand up comedians doing a skit on religion. But my personal experience is that those that continue to dwell on anti-religous topcis and persons, and attack it from any angle in order to justify their non-beliefs have serious issues. But thats just my experience. I lead a pretty normal life without church, and this is just from what I've seen both on the internet and in the persons I've encountered in life. I have very high respect for those who attend church consistently, devote their life to helping others, don't like tele-evangilists, and keep religion "to themselves" in open conversations. From my life experiences meeting these people, they are very strong people emotionally and psychologically.
-
I do not belong to any organized religion. I have nothing against religion until it trys to ditate to me... in this respect, I hate socialism a lot more than organized religion. silat and his socialism is much more of a threat to me livingt my life than any religion that could prosper in the U.S. under our constitution.
Just as I know that allmost all the evil that is done in this country is done by liberal socialists and fascists...I believe that much of the good that is done is done by organized religions... the secular charities and socialist programs are rife with greed and ineficiency... I will not willingly give to any of them..
the religious based ones are much better... Even habitat for humanity started out with a core of christians... salvation army... children international...
What do secular groups give us? have you hung around a planned parenthood or welfare office lately? The gloom and hoplesness is overpowering.... what is secular socialism offering other than soothing the concience of limosine liberals?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
blah blah...
Oh yeah... let's not forget your statement on C6 that whoever wasn't raising children was a terrorist. You're so full of it, it's actualy overflowing...
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Oh yeah... let's not forget your statement on C6 that whoever wasn't raising children was a terrorist. You're so full of it, it's actualy overflowing...
Not quite sure what that means? Surely you can do better than that, Saw?
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Though I am not a religous person, I've noticed that the behavior of those who go out of their way to slam religions (those religions that don't actively sponsor murder in the radical sense) have a similiar pattern. These people usually have some pretty severe issues in their own lives. They can't stand to see someone who is devoted and follow guidelines. This person usually has not achieved self-actualization in Maslows theory of heirarchy and this person tends to subliminally doubt ones self but masks it with overconfidence on the surface.
But don't let that get in the way of your back-slapping thread, boys. ;)
How do you know which religion is being "slammed"? Must be that objectivity that your self actualization has leant you.
Ripsnort doesn't know what self-actualization means. If he did, he would understand that being able to observe unemotionally (objective) and express disdain for irrational and illogical behavior, aka stupid, is part of being a self-actualized person.
Lets examine Maslows definition of self-actualization and see just how compatable it is with religious dogmatic indoctriniation.
They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
I guess if you think it's fact and reality that moses parted the red sea, or jesus walked on water. Then this first rule doesn't exclude you. Of course if you base your beliefe system on faith and not reason.. well sorry.
They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
Well I guess letting go of the controlls of your aircraft to pray falls in this catagory.
They are creative
As long as it's not blasphemous
They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
ok
They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
Sure, as long as you don't appreciate it too much, or with the same sex, or in groups, or before your married, or dance, or drink, or eat bacon, or use contraceptives...
Yes for the religous life is a gift. But it's mostly just a waiting and a trial period. Because life is not nearly as good as death is going to be!
They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority
Ooooh man. I don't think I need to say anything here.
They judge others without prejudice, in a way that can be termed objective.
Haha! Can you say infadel, or lefty, or heathan, or faithfull suspension of objective reason.
Seagoons verbose rationalization is immenent.
-
suave.... how is any of that inconsistent with spirituality or... even most organized religions?
I would point out that your examples would all be in direct opposition of the worlds most dangerous religion..... socialism.
liberal socialism is the worlds most insane and dangerous religion with the moslem religion a close second.
lazs
-
I'm an equal opportunity mocker rgardless if the subject is Fox news, country-western songs, Peta, lawyers, sports figures, cat/rottweiller owners, politicians, olympic figure skating, rappers, online game players or religions.
But when it comes to religions my take is they're good for the weak minded as they need that "support" for some reason or another. Al well and fine till they start dictatinc how I should think or live. IMO all of em are snakes of different colors.
And just because one snake is aggressive right now while another is docile doesn't mean people should become complacemet with the "gentle" one - especially given the "gentle" snakes recent history of being murderously hostile also.
-
lets examine liberal socialism with suaves guidelines shall we?
"They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
LOL... liberal socialists embracing facts? watching them ignore facts and realities on any subject they oppose like the simple on of gun control is enlightening... facts allways come second (or not at all) to liberals over "feelings"
They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
Well.... yeah... if an organized march to shout down other peoples ideas is considered "spontaneous"
They are creative
especially with the truth... they do have some good comedians tho.
They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
They don't want to solve problems so much as increase their power and/or sooth their concience... solving the problem is not the key... appearing to care is.
They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
Sure... so long as the people agree with them otherwise they are branded as rednecks and facists and neo whatevers... Closeness to other people? LOL big cities (the liberal socialist haven) is the hive of these socialists and while physicaly close... there is no human contact. liberal socialist hate people but love humanity.
They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority
you are kidding? liberal morality is based on what feels good for them and what they can control in others.
They judge others without prejudice, in a way that can be termed objective.
can you say cracker or redneck or fascist or neocon?
The most dangerous religion is liberal socialism.
lazs
-
That a humourus topic like this can make a bozo like Ripsnort post so hypocritically makes it al lthat more funny.
-
Works both ways, Suave. Lets examine Maslows definition of self-actualization and see just how compatable it is with non-religious dogmatic indoctriniation.
They embrace the facts and realities of the world (including themselves) rather than denying or avoiding them.
You won't find religion-slammers (as they're now know through this thread) embracing much of anything except THEIR ideology. Selfishness is a common trait. A reality of the world is...religion exists. They can't stand that others serve a higher being, since religion slammers serve no one but themselves.
They are spontaneous in their ideas and actions.
Spontaneous, that's correct...more like knee-jerk reaction to anyone that is religious.
They are creative
Yes, I suppose they devise new ways of justifying their actions while belittling others because they believe in a Savior or a God.
They are interested in solving problems; this often includes the problems of others. Solving these problems is often a key focus in their lives.
Ha! Yeah. Problem solvers. "You have a problem, you believe in God" That solves problems doesn't it? ;)
They feel a closeness to other people, and generally appreciate life.
Closeness? How much more alienation can you get than saying others religious beliefs are "made up 2000 years ago" ? Sure, religion-slammers appreciate life, as long as they make sure that church-goers suffer through redicule.
They have a system of morality that is fully internalized and independent of external authority
Morality, sure, however superiority complex is what most religioun-slammers have. Certainly external of authority, why that would mean a religion-slammer would actually have to be responsible for his own actions!! ;)
They judge others without prejudice, in a way that can be termed objective.
Heh, yeah. Religion-slammers are objective. "You believe in the invisible man and your stupid!" Thats how "objective" they are. ;)
Suave's verbose rationalization is immenent, agreed. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]
-
Originally posted by Westy
"These people usually have some pretty severe issues in their own lives."
Coming from you that is absolutely priceless.
Originally posted by Westy
That a humourus topic like this can make a bozo like Ripsnort post so hypocritically makes it al lthat more funny.
Come on Westy! You're falling! I've heard better from Weazel! Give it your best..come on, try harder! It's almost like you were trying to make a point in the debate, but I swear its nothing more than just personal attacks on the posters. Good try at making a point! :rofl
-
Originally posted by Silat
I think this about covers it....................
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/242_1140770836_historyofreligion.jpg)
Almost forgot...
IN
-
I'm glad that ripsnort didn't change his avatar before denouncing religion slammers.
And yes I agree with lazs that political fanatacism is religion too and is not compatable with Maslows definition of self-actualization.
-
Originally posted by Suave
I'm glad that ripsnort didn't change his avatar before denouncing religion slammers.
And yes I agree with lazs that political fanatacism is religion too and is not compatable with Maslows definition of self-actualization.
Do you just pretend to have a reading disability or just play that way for the sake of your own arguement?
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Though I am not a religous person, I've noticed that the behavior of those who go out of their way to slam religions (those religions that don't actively sponsor murder in the radical sense) have a similiar pattern. These people usually have some pretty severe issues in their own lives. They can't stand to see someone who is devoted and follow guidelines. This person usually has not achieved self-actualization in Maslows theory of heirarchy and this person tends to subliminally doubt ones self but masks it with overconfidence on the surface.
But don't let that get in the way of your back-slapping thread, boys. ;)
-
Yeah I like how you objectively discerned that the cartoon was in no means addressing radical violence inherent to organized religions. Which is remarkably perceptive of you considering that the cartoon depicts radical violence on behalf of religion. You quite astutely saw through this deception and revealed it for what it is. A direct mockery of religion's peacefull attributes.
-
Originally posted by Suave
Yeah I like how you objectively discerned that the cartoon was in no means addressing radical violence inherent to organized religions.
are you saying then that disorganized religions are less violence prone than the organized ones?
-
Funny.
Organized religion would be more prone to organized violence, while disorganized religion would be more prone to disorganized violence.
-
Be it Right, Left or otherwise. And no matter what faith you choose to beleive in or not beleive in any.
Im not an Athiest but I can still easily see that
The cartoon isnt at all inaccurate.
Just about Every major religion in history is guilty.
As a Beif overview
Ancient Greeks and Romans.
More recently Christians (Christianity is certainly no innocent party During the Cusades it was condoned byt eh church to kill mulsims because they were considered infidels. Then there was the little thing called "The Spanish Inqesition" which lasted in some parts of the world untill the mid 1800's)
Then we have the current Islamic situation
The story remains the same.
Maybe its just a phase they all go through LMAO
-
Even though the message would be exactly the same as this cartoon here, if the cartoon depicted a guy drawing Mohammed and then some guy comming up and yelling Blasphemer and hitting the prophet portrait maker with a rock. Rip would be all chuckles here. Because Rip is sternly against such barbaric behavior, in fact he even sports an avatar to express his anti blasphemy violence stance.
-
Originally posted by Suave
I guess if you think it's fact and reality that moses parted the red sea, .
He didnt. Nor did the Red sea part for him.
Now the Reed Sea (or Sea of Reeds) would be another story as there is scientific evidence that due to certain geological events that took place around that time this would have and could have happened (Think Tsunami)
the miracle in my view isnt that the events mentioned in the story happened as each are again. due to certain geological events taking place around that time are scientifically explainable.
the Miracle is that Moses Knew they would happen.
What's not a miracle at all is the getting water from a stone as nomads to this day manage to find water (underground springs actually)in the same way Moses did
Course. if you've never seen it before and didn't know it possible all these events would seem like miracles
-
(http://hacks.mit.edu/Hacks/by_year/2001/monolith_excavate/l7_monolith_sign_crop.jpg)
-
Hi Drediock,
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
What's not a miracle at all is the getting water from a stone as nomads to this day manage to find water (underground springs actually)in the same way Moses did
Course. if you've never seen it before and didn't know it possible all these events would seem like miracles
Respectfully, Moses was raised as the son of Pharaoh's daughter in Pharaoh's household. Throughout his childhood he was surrounded by tutors and raised to be a prince of Egypt, as Stephen puts it in Acts 7:21-22 "But when he was set out, Pharaoh's daughter took him away and brought him up as her own son. And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds."
After he was forced to flee from Egypt, Moses spent many years as a Shepherd in Midian, the desert wilderness of southern Sinai. As such, we have a man who was both exposed to the best teaching available at the time and who was intimately familiar with the ways of life in the Sinai Desert. He had also been in the region of the Red Sea most of his life, and there was a direct and frequently travelled trade route between Egypt and Canaan that went through the area of the adjacent to the sea of reeds.
So Moses was far more familiar with the area than almost all modern commentators and yet he recorded it himself as a Miracle, in which the Lord directly acted to show his mercy by effecting the salvation of his people and his justice through the destruction of Pharaoh's army:
"And the LORD said to Moses, "Why do you cry to Me? Tell the children of Israel to go forward. "But lift up your rod, and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it. And the children of Israel shall go on dry ground through the midst of the sea. "And I indeed will harden the hearts of the Egyptians, and they shall follow them. So I will gain honor over Pharaoh and over all his army, his chariots, and his horsemen. "Then the Egyptians shall know that I am the LORD, when I have gained honor for Myself over Pharaoh, his chariots, and his horsemen." And the Angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud went from before them and stood behind them. So it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel. Thus it was a cloud and darkness to the one, and it gave light by night to the other, so that the one did not come near the other all that night. Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the LORD caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land, and the waters were divided. So the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea on the dry ground, and the waters were a wall to them on their right hand and on their left." (Exodus 14:15-22)
Now, if you are reading this text and your inherent presupposition is that either there is no God, or if there is a God, He is not capable of acting directly in His creation, you will immediately dismiss his working as an invention. Therefore you'll try to figure out another way to get Israel over the Red Sea, and Pharaoh's pursuit thwarted without the intervention of a God you believe cannot intervene. Hence the theory you presuppose. You then explain the way it is recorded as the superstitious wonder of ignorant ancients who didn't understand the way the world worked and so explained natural phenomena with "God did it!"
First this displays an obvious predisposition to unbelief, but also the modern tendency to what C.S. Lewis called "Chronological arrogance", or the belief that merely because we are further along in the time frame we are smarter that all our stupid forebears. It seldom occurs to us for instance, that the average ancient Shepherd understood nature far better than a modern office worker, and while he may not have had a microwave, he could find his way and survive in inhospitable circumstances where modern men would have quickly died.
Anyway, Dred, I personally have no problem with people saying "I don't believe that God parted the Red Sea" but, my teeth personally clench when people come up with rationalistic and untenable explanations that presume that everyone in the past was thicker than a brick. Personally, I think we live in an age of declining, not increasing, wisdom.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
the modern tendency to what C.S. Lewis called "Chronological arrogance", or the belief that merely because we are further along in the time frame we are smarter that all our stupid forebears.
Personally, I think we live in an age of declining, not increasing, wisdom.
I had reached the same conclusion on my own but didn't know there was a term for it. Thank you for the definition.
I happen to agree 100%
-
<>
i call unfair, why not compare one of pharaohs scribes to a modern man trained in wilderness survival.
-
Christianity, as it has evolved in western civilization to its present form, I believe is by and large a positive force for many millions of people and enriches their day and the lives of everyone around them.
Islam on the other hand, has not impressed me very much. I admit I need to study it further but what I see in the world today leads me to believe that, as a religion, Islam seems rather poorly engineered. For reasons I dont fully understand, Islam does not appear to have evolved much at all. Its people still seem to think like they did 1000 years ago.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
silat... are you rabid about spirituality too or just organized religion or.... do you form your beliefs based soley on what your friends think is cool?
lazs
Laz rabid about spirtuality in what way?
I find all fanatical religious folks to be the enemies of my freedom. If you choose to have FAITH then that is your right. The minute you try to make your faith the law of the land then I have a problem.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I do not belong to any organized religion. I have nothing against religion until it trys to ditate to me... in this respect, I hate socialism a lot more than organized religion. silat and his socialism is much more of a threat to me livingt my life than any religion that could prosper in the U.S. under our constitution.
Just as I know that allmost all the evil that is done in this country is done by liberal socialists and fascists...I believe that much of the good that is done is done by organized religions... the secular charities and socialist programs are rife with greed and ineficiency... I will not willingly give to any of them..
the religious based ones are much better... Even habitat for humanity started out with a core of christians... salvation army... children international...
What do secular groups give us? have you hung around a planned parenthood or welfare office lately? The gloom and hoplesness is overpowering.... what is secular socialism offering other than soothing the concience of limosine liberals?
lazs
You have taken a huge leap in FAITH> I am not a socialist.
But if jumping on your FRIENDS bandwagon and attacking me with political names makes you happy then Im glad you are happy:)
-
Originally posted by john9001
<>
i call unfair, why not compare one of pharaohs scribes to a modern man trained in wilderness survival.
Trained by whom? Most modern folks trained in "wilderness survival" are trained to survive long enough to get to the next phone to call for help. Once their prepackaged first aid kit and granola bars are gone, and their water purification tablets are used up, what do you think they are going to eat? How are they going to treat their wounds? How many people these days are trained to know what plants they can eat in the woods or how to set a basic snare to catch small game? How big a backpack do you think most modern "survivalists" need to live out in the wilderness for a week on their own?
I call "unfair".
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Though I am not a religous person, I've noticed that the behavior of those who go out of their way to slam religions (those religions that don't actively sponsor murder in the radical sense) have a similiar pattern. These people usually have some pretty severe issues in their own lives. They can't stand to see someone who is devoted and follow guidelines. This person usually has not achieved self-actualization in Maslows theory of heirarchy and this person tends to subliminally doubt ones self but masks it with overconfidence on the surface.
But don't let that get in the way of your back-slapping thread, boys. ;)
Rip please post links to show which major religion hasnt sponsored torture and or murder in its history...
-
Many of the people who rolled up their sleeves, gathered up supplies, food and equipment, and left home to aid the victims of hurricane Katrina, both black and white, were members of church congregations in Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, and other neighboring states.
Gee, guess they didn't know they were supposed to be brutish, ignorant, racist, and bloodthirsty religious fanatics.
WhatEVER could have come over them?
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Drediock,
Anyway, Dred, I personally have no problem with people saying "I don't believe that God parted the Red Sea" but, my teeth personally clench when people come up with rationalistic and untenable explanations that presume that everyone in the past was thicker than a brick. Personally, I think we live in an age of declining, not increasing, wisdom.
- SEAGOON
Respectfully.
I believe God is responcable for a great many things. But I also believe that he must do so within certain Scientific laws and principles he himself created and used to make these things possible.
As for the Red Sea. It is my understanding that this is merely a mistranslation. Remember, the bible, and the old testament in particular has been translated and retranslated a great many times before its gotten to our current version. I'll have to look and see if I can find the links explaining this. But it was written by a Rabbi who stated that in the course of one of the translations the word Red, and reed are essentially the same and could have meant either.
It is also supported by the mentioning of passing by I believe it was Papyrus (forgive me as its been a while since I actually looked all this stuff up). In any event the type of plant they passed by will not grow near salt water.
Furthermore,at the time the Red Sea was not called the "red sea at all by the Egyptians but was called "the Green Sea" Moses having as you stated been raised in Egypt would have also no doubt referred to it as the same.
Also it could have very well been misunderstood one for the other as the Reed Sea is also an inlet to the Red Sea
In any event getting back to my original statement. Virtually every singe event of the exodus From the pillar of fire, to the plagues to the parting of the Sea (whichever you prefer to call it) is well within scientific plausibility.
I Still maintain that the true miracle wasn't in that these things happened But that Moses knew these things would happen.
And to the people of that time All of these events would seem like miracles.
And trying to explain it to them would be like trying to explain quantum physics to a 2 year old and expecting him to get it.
As we ourselves only recently have begun to understand the science behind it.
I have great faith that the Exodus did happen the way described in the Bible.
Science actually supports the events
I only have a problem with some of the details in the way it was recorded.
After all. It was recorded, Translated and retranslated time and again by humans
-
Originally posted by Silat
Rip please post links to show which major religion hasnt sponsored torture and or murder in its history...
Another with reading disorder....
"those religions that don't actively sponsor murder in the radical sense"[/i]
Key word...Actively. Another key word. Radical. There you go. Now continue on making yourself feel good by bashing religion. The religious just ignore you so ultimately you're just making yourself feel good. You obviously need it (or you wouldn't continue to take pot shots on religion on this board like you so consistently do), so please be my guest and continue.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Rip please post links to show which major religion hasnt sponsored torture and or murder in its history...
Came up kinda dry trying to find Budhdhist atrocities. Found one kingdom that persecuted muslims, but that reading indicated it was more politics than "my god is better than your god".
(http://www.geoclassics.com/buddah-printstone-lg.jpg)
-
Rip I think the issue is that most religions have high profile examples of radicalism or abuse (sexual, monetary, powerwise etc) of some sort. In fact the only examples I can think of who don't have their extreme factions are the buddhists and hindu's.
Over the last decade these radicals and examples of bad stuff going on within various religions have grown more in profile, and you know how things work in this world... the squeeky wheel gets the oil.
And despite most people in the west bagging islam I think there is an underlying knowledge of the history of christianity vs islam, and so most people see islam as the modern culprit they know that christianity had a hand in giving it a good rattle.
edit: indy, thats not the real buddha, hes more like this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Thai_buddha.jpg/180px-Thai_buddha.jpg)
Gotta remember, buddha fasted with those indian holyman that live in the hills in isolation. Incidentally there is some traditional indian knowledge that says jesus travelled to india and learn't magic tricks from indian shamen.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Christianity, as it has evolved in western civilization to its present form, I believe is by and large a positive force for many millions of people and enriches their day and the lives of everyone around them.
I would tend to agree by and large that overall it is much more civilised then it was even a few hundred years ago.
But still. there is a radical segment that hasnt changed much. But this is true in any society.
On the other hand. is it the religeon that has evolved? or the people that practice it?
The words are the same. its how we enterpet the words that has changed as well as what we take from it.
Today, as a wholewe tend to take the parts we like or agree with and ignore what we dont.
I know I am just as guilty of this as anyone
Islam on the other hand, has not impressed me very much. I admit I need to study it further but what I see in the world today leads me to believe that, as a religion, Islam seems rather poorly engineered. For reasons I dont fully understand, Islam does not appear to have evolved much at all. Its people still seem to think like they did 1000 years ago.
Again I would agree. But Think about it. By maintaining the same mindset now as they did 1,000 years ago. they are probably closer to how their religeon was intended to be practiced then we are to ours.
-
Originally posted by Shuckins
Many of the people who rolled up their sleeves, gathered up supplies, food and equipment, and left home to aid the victims of hurricane Katrina, both black and white, were members of church congregations in Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, and other neighboring states.
Gee, guess they didn't know they were supposed to be brutish, ignorant, racist, and bloodthirsty religious fanatics.
WhatEVER could have come over them?
Many of the people who rolled up their sleeves, gathered up supplies, food and equipment, and left home to aid the victims of hurricane Katrina, both black and white, were not members of any organized religion.
Gee, guess they didn't know they were supposed to be brutish, ignorant, racist, and bloodthirsty.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Another with reading disorder....
"those religions that don't actively sponsor murder in the radical sense"[/i]
Key word...Actively. Another key word. Radical. There you go. Now continue on making yourself feel good by bashing religion. The religious just ignore you so ultimately you're just making yourself feel good. You obviously need it (or you wouldn't continue to take pot shots on religion on this board like you so consistently do), so please be my guest and continue.
I read you just fine.
<<Though I am not a religous person, I've noticed that the behavior of those who go out of their way to slam religions (those religions that don't actively sponsor murder in the radical sense) have a similiar pattern. These people usually have some pretty severe issues in their own lives. They can't stand to see someone who is devoted and follow guidelines. This person usually has not achieved self-actualization in Maslows theory of heirarchy and this person tends to subliminally doubt ones self but masks it with overconfidence on the surface.
>>>
YOu are commenting on this thread I presume or ?????
Therefore you are saying that I and others slammed religions that dont actively sponsor murder in the radical sense.
Now what part of my question are you having a problem with?
Its sad to see those with faith being so insecure in their beliefs that they personally attack anyone who doesnt believe in their comic book.
And please dont belittle us by saying you were speaking in vague generalities......
-
Ive always concidered religion as a form of crowd control.EVERY religion cepting the hindu and buddah types have murdered many in the name of their "God".That to me shows the falsness inherant in religion.Love thy neighbor unless he wont convert.Theirs alot of good that comes from religion,theres also as much horror.
-
Originally posted by DrDea
.....EVERY religion cepting the hindu and buddah types have murdered many in the name of their "God".That to me shows the falsness inherant in religion.Love thy neighbor unless he wont convert.Theirs alot of good that comes from religion,theres also as much horror.
I think in a lot of cases it's not the religion but the murderers excuse of doing it for his higher power that is to blame for that.
Like the gun saying "Religion doesn't kill people...... people kill people."
of course, unless it's a religion that actually advocates it.... but Christianity doesn't at all. But there have been some "people" that have in the name of Christianity.
-
Originally posted by mosgood
I think in a lot of cases it's not the religion but the murderers excuse of doing it for his higher power that is to blame for that.
Like the gun saying "Religion doesn't kill people...... people kill people."
of course, unless it's a religion that actually advocates it.... but Christianity doesn't at all. But there have been some "people" that have in the name of Christianity.
Remember the Inquisition? Killing and torturing in the name of Christ was advocated by the church.
That was the Christians dirty period. Well one of them.'
Islam appears to be having their Inquisition period to me. Maybe they need about 5 centuries till they become ENLIGHTENED like Christians.
-
the Miracle is that Moses Knew they would happen.
Like many other stories of Bible this would probably be a pagan 'miracle' going around in stories of the populace that was then adopted as a part of the Bible. Chances are, someone sometime somewhere witnessed the 'splitting of sea' and perhaps even made it through to the other side. But that person to be Moses - highly unlikely.
Doesn't it make any believers wonder why the world was full of magic and miracles just 2000 years ago - and now there's just plain old reality?
What happened meanwhile? Why did the miracles and magic disappear? Why aren't there loud booming voices talking to masses around every corner anymore?
One would think that one would get curious about it. At least a bit.
OT: Lazs bringing gun control to this topic shows that guns are in fact his religion.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Remember the Inquisition? Killing and torturing in the name of Christ was advocated by the church.
That was the Christians dirty period. Well one of them.'
Islam appears to be having their Inquisition period to me. Maybe they need about 5 centuries till they become ENLIGHTENED like Christians.
Silat, with all due respect, you have not one clue what you are talking about when it comes to either the history of Christianity or Islam. You make assumptions based on your own personal beliefs and some catch phrase from a history book you read 20 years ago and base your arguments on half-formed feelings and opinions someone else gave you.
You cannot always equate Christians with Christianity, nor can you always equate Moslems with Islam. People are fallible and always will be. There will always be someone who gets into a position of power, be it religious or secular, and abuses that power to do things that have nothing to do with the source of it.
Can you tell me why we have a seemingly infinite number of Christian denominations, yet only 2 Moslem denominations? Can you tell me how the 3 great monotheistic religions of the world are all related? Can you tell me what the Koran teaches about dealing with Christians and Jews? Have you ever SEEN a Koran? Have you ever read a Bible?
Stick to attacking Republican and/or conservatives. Its a job you know and do well. this isnt.
-
There will always be someone who gets into a position of power, be it religious or secular, and abuses that power to do things that have nothing to do with the source of it.
The difference is that when the power is on a religious level the followers tend to put all rationality aside and do insanely monstrous things. In the name of whichever God they're fooled into believing.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
The difference is that when the power is on a religious level the followers tend to put all rationality aside and do insanely monstrous things. In the name of whichever God they're fooled into believing.
yup
-
Originally posted by Silat
I think this about covers it....................
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/242_1140770836_historyofreligion.jpg)
Let's look at this cartoon. A caveman is worshiping a rock that resembles a lava lamp. He is in a meditative posture and another caveman comes up and calls him stupid. What happens next is what cavemen do when disturbed and called stupid. The caveman then resumes his worship as if nothing happened, and uses the term "infidel".
Somehow this is supposed to represent what religion is about, but doesn't specify any in particular by the title. Yes it does cover "it," very well. What it covers is the spiritual cowardness of cartoons like this. It's vague on purpose. Though it doesn't fool anybody. A roundabout way of refering to Islamic extremists without calling them stupid. They're saying "Hey don't look at me, all religions are stupid."
Gawd! Unbelievable.
Les
-
Yep unbelievable how accurately they nailed the point! :aok
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
edit: indy, thats not the real buddha, hes more like this:
Gotta remember, buddha fasted with those indian holyman that live in the hills in isolation. Incidentally there is some traditional indian knowledge that says jesus travelled to india and learn't magic tricks from indian shamen.
I have friends that confuse Buddha with Vishnu. No, I'm not joking. That's why I use happy Buddha pictures :)
-
ripley... the human right to be able to defend yourself and others is not a religion to me but a right and a human responsibility. It is worth fighting to protect.
My point is that many who view religion as evil look at socialism as the true religion... in modern times... socialism has killed one hell of a lot more people than christianity say. what socialism doesn't kill it destroys... it destroys peoples human rights.
Those who would make fun of people worshiping a supreme being seem odd to me. While I find no personal pull to worship any of oreganized religions dieties... I am bright enough to admit that I can't prove they are wrong.
Those who make fun of religion and claim to be athiests seem frightened and illogical to me.
some do it perhaps out of fear but others seem to do it in order to fit in with groups they admire... some... in order to justify what they do and strike back at those who would condem their acts.... none of those reasons is compelling to me or logical.
I am content to allow people to believe whatever they want so long as they don't force it on me. I feel that silat posting that cartoon and his susequent posts, are as much "in my face" as the witness at my door on saturday morning. both obnoxious and probly wrong.
lazs
-
I am content to allow people to believe whatever they want so long as they don't force it on me.
Well wasn't that quite the cartoons point? Even if you're content, there are a million others who are more than willing to force their views on you.
-
(http://atheistsunited.org/multimedia/cartoons/atheist-imaginaryfriend.gif)
(http://www.americanatheist.org/smr98/cartoon.gif)
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
You cannot always equate Christians with Christianity, nor can you always equate Moslems with Islam. People are fallible and always will be. There will always be someone who gets into a position of power, be it religious or secular, and abuses that power to do things that have nothing to do with the source of it.
and this is the standard religious cop-out most of us non-religious people are sick of.
a priest rips off his parish.... well he wasn't a real christian
a muslim suicide bomber takes out a bus in israel... well real muslims believe in peace so he wasn't a real follower
an christian anti-abortion protester shoots a doctor in the name of jesus... once again not a christian cos 'we wouldn't do that'
a priest gets caught fiddling little boys... once again obviously not a real christian
a serb general takes out all the muslim men and boys in a village, locks them in a barn and throws grenades inside... well, definitely not a christian right?
a muslim boards a commercial airliner, kills the crew, hijacks the plane and flies it into the WTC killing thousands... but hey islam is a religion of peace, so he 'wasn't one of us'
The world is sick of religious double talk. Get it?
-
Ok. I got it. So lets ask this question. Lets make this a REAL "History of Religion".
Where would modern society be today without it? Do you really think organized religion has come this far and done no good for society, or that the bad outweighs what has been done for the good in the name of God?
I challenge you. Prove you are more than a mouth and know something about history.
Or shut up.
You are sick of listening after all. Go read another thread.
-
Don't even know where to wade in at this point, or whether to even try.
Of course all religions are the same, so is every political persuasion, every restaurant, every car, and every novel. All the same. Not that I've tried any, but I know we'd be better off without any of them.
I mean man, do you know how many people cars have gotten killed? And they get all advertizy in your face and are all like "This car is better than that car" and I'm like Dude, if you want to be all "automotive" that's fine, just keep it in your own garage, ok? Oh, and I hear politicians are corrupt and some of them are just in it for the money, and the wars politics has caused? Don't get me started. Oh, and as for "Restaurants" - I mean organized food - I've always felt its best if everyone just stayed home and ate their own food, by themselves, don't go pushing your restrictive "Menu" on me, and my friend got Food Poisoning to boot. Novels, don't tell me about novels, some of them are just bad and violent, and then you have to read it the way the author wants you too and accept his "plot" and "characters" or they tell you the end won't make sense even if you reach it, and they make you pay to read it. Well not me, I know more about novels, never having read one than anyone who has, and certainly A LOT more than the people who read them all the time.
:rolleyes:
- SEAGOON
-
There is a quote ............... from some monk back around 700-800 AD, no one is sure of the author or the exact time it first appeared. This was during some of the heyday of Islamic expansion in the Near East and Middle East. Then, like now, it was easy to point the finger at Muslims and use their actions as carte blanche for doing just about anything in the name of "preserving" Christianity. This monk condemned them for acting outside the teachings of Jesus to protect themselves or to further ambitions.
"They hide their faith, and they divulge to them (i.e. Muslims) what suits them. They stray off the road which leads to the kingdom of heaven - hypocrites among us, marked with our mark, standing in our congregations, contradicting our faith, forfeiters of themselves, who are Christians in name only."
Western Civilization survived the Dark Ages becuase of monestaries in western europe that salvaged and preserved literature and ideas that would have otherwise been lost. Development there would have been pushed back at least a hundred years if not for the work of those monks. Many times those same monestaries provided sanctuary for the persecuted, providing them with safe havens when they would otherwise have perished. What of those individuals who left homes and family to serve those less fortunate in distant lands? The people who cared for lepers and the priests who went with the armies in time of war to provide comfort to those who could not be saved. What did they ask for? Who were they trying to con? Read the bible and tell me where it says its ok to do any of the things you complain Christians are guilty of? Where does it say its ok to kill people or to con them out of their money or to belittle or demean others? At best an argument can be made that it allows you to fight in self defense, or in the defense of your faith if someone attacks you because of it, but nowhere does it give approval for killing outright, nowhere does it give approval to anything else I mentioned. Matter of fact, the only straightforward statements in the Bible on these issues pretty emphatically say not to do them. So tell me its not easy enough to tell who the people who deserve the title of Christian are. All you have to do is look. What does the Koran say about dealing with Jews and Christians? What did Muhammad say about this? Here we are fighting each other after all. Have been for centuries. Lets see what he said.
"Dispute not with the Peole of the Book save in the fairer manner, except for those of them that do wrong; and say, 'We believe in what has been sent down to us, and what has been sent down to you; our God and your God is One, and to Him we have surrendered'."
The Koran REQUIRES that Muslims respect the Ahl-al-Kitab, or "People of the Book" (Jews and Christians). In other words, Muhammad recognized that all 3 served the same God and should respect one another. So much for that eh?
Even when the empire the Muslims were building settled, when they controlled most of the Near East and Middle East, rather than internal conflict they co-existed with Christians and Jews, and even some leftover Zoroastrians from the Persian empire. Yes they segregated the others somewhat, but other than a tax and prohibitions againt marrying Muslims they were left alone. Indeed, the civilization they built collected all the learning of old Rome and Greece together in one place, provided open trade routes to more lands than had ever been connected before, established schools and hospitals that were far ahead of their time. How much sooner did we develop practical Astronomy because of their work, both in collect previous work on the topic and in the work they did as well.
You cant just dismiss the good religion has done in the world. Nor should we ever dismiss when they do wrong.
-
Where would modern society be today without it? Do you really think organized religion has come this far and done no good for society, or that the bad outweighs what has been done for the good in the name of God?
The modern society would be a millenium further in technological advancement. We might have discovered the oil based society hundreds or thousands of years earlier where the population was still small enough not to cause major ecological problems. By now we'd most likely run on clean fuels already.
But no, especially in the middle age the church suppressed all technological advancement. How many great scientists were jailed or totally suppressed by the oppressive church? Galileo Galilei, Copernicus etc. etc. not to mention how many thousands of others were left to oblivion because they had no freedom of expression.
The power of a society based on superstitious thinking and the limitations it has produced have slowed down our technological adancement up to a point where we're already overpopulated, underteched and about to face doom by unresolved ecological problems related to technology.
So there you have it.
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
Western Civilization survived the Dark Ages becuase of monestaries in western europe that salvaged and preserved literature and ideas that would have otherwise been lost. Development there would have been pushed back at least a hundred years if not for the work of those monks.
The moment Christianity came into power in the fourth century, books that do not conform to its teaching were ferociously destroyed. Around 363-364, the Christian emperor Jovian, ordered the pagan library in Antioch to be burnt, leaving the helpless citizens watching the books go up in flames. [1]
Continuing this trend, around the year 372, the Christian emperor Valens (d.378), as part of his persecution of pagans, ordered the burning of non-Christian books in Antioch. (The main target were pagan books on divination and magic but most of the books burned were mainly on liberal arts and law). Fearful of the emperor, many provinces of the eastern empire burned their own libraries to avoid his wrath.[2]
Perhaps the greatest single intellectual loss of the classical world was the destruction of the library of Alexandria. At one time, it was reputed to house about 700,000 books on subjects ranging from literature and history to science and philosophy. In the year 391, the bishop of Alexandria, Theophilus (d.412), in his quest to destroy paganism, lead a group of crazed monks and laymen, destroyed all the books in the great library.
No other great libraries were spared by the Christians. Up to the fifth century many Greco Roman cities had libraries which housed more than 100,000 books. These were all destroyed by the Christians. Pope Gregory The Great (c.540-604) was the person responsible for destroying the last collection of older Roman works in the city. [3]
When the crusaders captured Tripoli in 1109, apart from butchering the defeated Muslims, they destroyed the Banu Ammar library, at that time, the finest Muslim library in the world. About 100,000 books of Muslim learning were cast into the flames. In the sack of Constantinople in 1204, the western crusaders destroyed the last surviving copies of classical works in Europe. [4]
btw, religions past, good or bad, is not what I'm talking about, religions present actions are. One could argue dictatorships were good in that they united many of the peoples in what continue to be modern nations today. But that doesn't mean the are good for our times.
-
how could a minuscule and obscure middle eastern religious sect survive from the dawn of recorded history until the present inspite of the vigorous attempts of every major and minor world power to eradicate them from the face of the earth? how is it that every culture that blesses and assists these people are richly blessed and those that do not disappear? how is it that every prophecy written in this culture's annals has come to fruition 100% inerrantally?
-
1) Ideas are akin to viruses, hosts may die, but the genes are passed on.
2) :noid
3) Did you mean "inherently"? For the same reason every myth and legend in human history is, basically, the same. All religions and gods and traditions are reiterations of the same archetype(s).
That said, how do you know this is a direct cause-effect corelation? You'd have to be omniscient. Or base your judgement on faith, which in terms of impartiality and rationality, might as well be copy-pasted from a Nostradamus scripture.
-
Originally posted by moot
1) Ideas are akin to viruses, hosts may die, but the genes are passed on.
2) :noid
3) Did you mean "inherently"? For the same reason every myth and legend in human history is, basically, the same. All religions and gods and traditions are reiterations of the same archetype(s).
That said, how do you know this is a direct cause-effect corelation? You'd have to be omniscient. Or base your judgement on faith, which in terms of impartiality and rationality, might as well be copy-pasted from a Nostradamus scripture.
missed, again I might add. jews are not an idea they are a people as well as a religion. nostrahandsomehunk was around 25% accurate and then his prophecies were vague in nature. biblical prophecy is finely detailed and fulfilled 100% accurately 100% of the time. it is inerrant.
-
That's funny.. you mean being jewish, ethnicaly (dare we say biologicaly?), is an inherent god magic voodoo lucky charm?
'again'?
"inerrant"?
Why admit something you can't prove? If you don't understand something thru-and-thru, you can't predict it, regardless of current track record.. hindsight isn't foresight.
:lol Prophecy... why not astrology while you're at it?
-
if we take your model then there is no basis for the authentication of any historical document or historical event. since none of us were there to corroborate the story it must not be so. is that what you are saying? in the bible you have a historical document of which many different editions have been discovered throughout time and all retain consistentcy with a copy you could purchase today. you choose to call this majic or voodoo? read up on the topic a little better, you don't need faith you need to comprehend what you are reading. and yes jewish ethnicity is central to the issue. start with that series prophecy, the one about the jews being God's chosen people and all of the prophecies concerning them and how there were manifested and when. it's pretty compelling reading, at least to me is.
-
biblical prophecy is finely detailed and fulfilled 100% accurately 100% of the time. it is inerrant.
How can you claim such bs in the year 2006? There are whole websites dedicated to proving the Bible errant, hundreds of examples.
This is the typical example of putting faith over common sense and reason. A typical example of why religions have the ill-effect on development that they do.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
How can you claim such bs in the year 2006? There are whole websites dedicated to proving the Bible errant, hundreds of examples.
This is the typical example of putting faith over common sense and reason. A typical example of why religions have the ill-effect on development that they do.
I posted a fact. don't spew, embark on a course of study to debunk me then. all you are doing is posting your mis-guided opinion. don't be so emotional it seems very eu....er never mind.
-
It's not that one should only believe in the plausability of what one did see, but that it's irresponsible to blindly bet on something you not only didn't see, but by principle couldn't see, and even if you saw, could not understand.
Yes, the bible's got a pretty good record of consistency.. of telling yet another supernatural myth. I don't care what you do, nor whether you say something that is erroneous (or not).
That's what humans are, causal True/False machines. What I will oppose is breach of my liberties in the name of an erroneous principle.
Preaching an irrational theoretical solution to real practical problems can't be anything else than a wild goose chase.
I've done catechism for years, while I was small. The teachers talked to us (imo anyway) like we were idiots, even when the analogies were especially transparent and honest. I did get what they were saying, but it was always apparent to me the ideas they were preaching could not have practical value (nevermind that, all things considered, we already knew almost all that stuff from our own experiences).
So Jesus was a nice guy, of mythical proportions. Ok, so I should do the same, be 'good'? But what was good? Something that made you fuzzy inside? My deskmate felt fuzzy eating earthworms. Feelings are inconsistent, anyone who's watched the 8oc news knows it by 10y.o., latest.
A teacher is grading the mathematical correctness of his students' copies. All are made of numbers, except one copy, that instead of 2+2= (number), is "2+2=(drying ball of student's snot). How does that stack up, in terms of mathematical accuracy? It's not a mathematical answer.
Reason and irrationality had both nice fruits to offer, e.g. various and sundry sciences for one, and arts for the other, but they were apples and oranges.
Reason was, and still is, the only failsafe method.
Suppose we made a watch, and in the usual clockwork essential to telling time on the front-end, we imbedded a chaotic singularity generator, that would affect the time displayed on said front-end.
Regardless of how accurate the rest of the clockwork would be, the time displayed would be corrupt.
The analogy here is that you're trying to rationaly define and predict something that is by principle not rational.
-
I posted a fact.
No you posted a statement of faith. Because Bible contains hundreds of errors and it is easily verified. Either you have never studied Bible or you simply block it from your conciousness.
don't be so emotional it seems very eu....er never mind.
Discrimination gear popping in already? Didn't take long untill the nationality racism stepped in.
-
well then at least I understand that there are certain things in the historical record that given the evidence presented, you would accept at face value. good. on what basis could a case be made, proven or disproven once all the principals involved have long expired?
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
No you posted a statement of faith. Because Bible contains hundreds of errors and it is easily verified. Either you have never studied Bible or you simply block it from your conciousness.
Discrimination gear popping in already? Didn't take long untill the nationality racism stepped in.
ok then since, according to you the bible "contains hundreds of errors" and since I "have never studied the bible" or "i'm simply blocking it from my consciousness" please post these errors. with so many errors it shouldn't take you but a second to accomplish.
-
Ripley,
You use the English language very well. Is that a result of a fine Finlandial education, or are you an ex-patriate American or Englishman?
What are you hoping to accomplish with your posts? Trying to educate the unwashed and illiterate masses? Trying to improve the world? Or just trying to stir up a ruckuss and make yourself feel superior?
I've known a lot of people who were faithful and sincere Christians who have done a lot of good in the world. They are not fanatics and faithfully try to live by Christian precepts. Their faith brings them comfort, so why should you care what they believe?
How about a little civility and respect for their beliefs? Or is the use of manners also a passe concept for you?
-
Originally posted by moot
A teacher is grading the mathematical correctness of his students' copies. All are made of numbers, except one copy, that instead of 2+2= (number), is "2+2=(drying ball of student's snot). How does that stack up, in terms of mathematical accuracy? It's not a mathematical answer.
that would depend, was that a (singular) or was it four tightly packed? it may have been a thoughtful and creative answer that simply flew over the teacher's head.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Its sad to see those with faith being so insecure in their beliefs that they personally attack anyone who doesnt believe in their comic book.
What`s even sadder are those who proclaim not to beleive in God or a higher being, but seemed to be so scared and insecure in their nonbeleif that they feel compelled to continualy try to back up their stance by injecting childish drivel whenever the subject is brought up, and in some case such as this, when it hasn`t been brought up. Then when confronted on such they immediately start saying that they are being attacked or insulted.
-
Shuckins, thank you. In answer to your question I've been raised in a multinational family with periods of english as spoken language. I've never even stepped on US ground, unfortunately. Something I have to correct one of these days. In addition to that we do have an education system that has been proven efficient.
What is the point in my posts? The point is that there is high relevance to the original subject when a believer states things like the Bible is inerrant. I could have taken that at face value naturally and left the remark as it is, but since I'm baited easy I went for it.
Then to storch:
please post these errors. with so many errors it shouldn't take you but a second to accomplish.
Not the best link I've ever seen but first to google (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#introduction)
-
One of the themes that comes up here is that bad things were done in the name of religion many hundreds of years ago... no kidding?
Course... what the socialists here fail to point out is that in those times... bad things were done in the name of.... of anything... cruelty reigned... kings were much worse... millions died at the whim of kings.... human rights did not exist... government killed much more than any religion... government even used religion to mask their reign of oppression and terror and cruelty..
move forward into more modern times... for every person killed in the name of christian religions.... government killed a 1,000 or more. If the mormons killed a 100... the government would kill a million mormons and indians.
let's look at stalin and pole pot and mao... How many people are christians killing these days?
certainly muslims are still berserk but... they don't live in any century we would recognize... they coexist with the centuries.
I don't fear the jehova witness or mormon at my door near as much as I fear the socialist. christians don't tax and jail and tap phones and draft people and slaughter people in other lands. Christians have no power over me.
To focus on religion as evil and ignore socialism or totalitarianism of any kind is either ignorant or dishonest...
Big government is the religion of the athiest... it is a socialist concept... government is their god...
lazs
-
Lazs the problem with many people here seem to be that they confuse the individual level faith to the organized religion.
Personal level of faith is anyones right. But when an organized church is built, a political structure is raised up. God does not need a church. Christians do not need a church. And by this I don't mean church buildings and priests as places of worship, I mean the whole political power structure consisting of the Pope, bishops, archbishops, priests, chaplains and the lot.
In the old days the church stood in the place of the current political structure. Only difference was (and is) that the church is not a democracy. As we've by now established that the church is in fact a political structure consisting of men it is logical to assume those men in power will take necessary means to protect their positions in power - and ultimately the churches position on top of the society.
That's where the herecy claims, witch hunts and the lot came from. Political corruption, greed and evil of men.
Organized religion then is the dominating factor on evil things of the history of religion. Despite the good intentions of single believers. As they say: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
Shuckins, thank you. In answer to your question I've been raised in a multinational family with periods of english as spoken language. I've never even stepped on US ground, unfortunately. Something I have to correct one of these days. In addition to that we do have an education system that has been proven efficient.
What is the point in my posts? The point is that there is high relevance to the original subject when a believer states things like the Bible is inerrant. I could have taken that at face value naturally and left the remark as it is, but since I'm baited easy I went for it.
Then to storch:
Not the best link I've ever seen but first to google (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_meritt/bible-contradictions.html#introduction)
don't google something post one yourself
-
Hmm.. so you actually want me to go and study Bible and find something that already hasn't been discovered? That's a bad one. :D
-
ripley... did you read what I wrote? you keep hammering on the history of religion... you talk about the evil it did when it was a political force but conviently take it out of context.... like the inquisition or crusades existed in a vacumn.... like the age of kings was some sort of camelot fairly tale.
Kings and governments were brutal beyond anything even religion could come up with... they often (mostly)conspired for mutal benifiet...
sooooo... bad times = bad people, bad government and..... bad religion.
so let's live in the present. What inquisitions are waiting in the wings? If you fear that from religion then you must know that it can't happen without governments consent and help and people sinking back to the dark ages...
so.... I ask.... what are you afraid of? and.... why aren't you afraid of government at least as much? You allow government the power of life and death over you... your very freedoms and entire life is controled by it.... you seem to put so much FAITH in it that you won't even question it.
And you wonder why I simply shake my head in disbelief? You wonder why I worry more about you than some harmless christian?
lazs
-
Lazs you're not getting the message. A democratic government makes its decisions based on factual reasons.
A religious structure makes its decisions based on superstitious faith which more than often defies reason.
If you were going to face a trial on blasphemy, would you choose a trial held by church or the common justice system? As you see, those two instances work on two totally different grounds.
Nobody can deny that people's beliefs have suppressed the ones who have seen the larger picture for milleniums.
By the way, the socialist government that you seem to be so much scared of actually has strong ties to the christian church back here. Even at the level where the church taxes christians through government.
-
Not sure what you mean, Storch. Principles are artificial, abstract constructs modeled independently from concrete reality.
Snot mathematics is shades of saintly apparitions and godly omens, until a rational systematic is verified between the two (math and snot).
-
Originally posted by moot
Not sure what you mean, Storch. Principles are artificial, abstract constructs modeled independently from concrete reality.
Snot mathematics is shades of saintly apparitions and godly omens, until a rational systematic is verified between the two (math and snot).
not principles, principals
-
ripley... we have never been able to understand each other it seems... Might be my fault.. don't know.
Again.... christians have no control over me and are no threat.... government has complete control so is the biggest threat to my freedom in my life.... this is true everywhere except where religion and government are in collusion.... such as muslim countries.
A people needs a strong constitution to protect it from it's government.... that same constitution would protect it even better from religion. Your examples of religion running the courts or making laws is silly. A good government is limited in what it can do... the courts are limited.
I bring up gun control because it is such an obvious example.... take my state, kalifornia... we have new gun laws every week it seems... every state around us is very reasonable and it is extremely easy for people in those states to own useful arms and even carry them concealled... why is kalifornia so different? who knows but..... kalifornia is the only state that does not have strong citizens protection rights for firearms ownership.
Regardless... in those other states it matters not what the government or the religious think... the right is protected.
Who is taking away free peoples rights around the world (free people not muslims) ?? is it the christians or is it government? is it the U.S. or the socialists ones? I fear your socialism much more than I have ever feared religion... I can move away from very religious areas in my country.... it is impossible to move away from government.
lazs
-
"on what basis could a case be made, proven or disproven once all the principals (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/results.asp?searchword=principal&x=0&y=0) involved have long expired?"
Let me know which definition's the right one..
-
Lazs while currently it is the government, in the past the church was a government within the government. The king was second to the religious leaders.
And lazs.. I was just teasing you. :D Your enthusiasm just begs to give you a poke sometimes. :p
-
sheesh the legal definition of a principal ie the principal participants in the event, the perpetrator (as it were) the witnesses, the victims etc. principals. or do the english utilize another word for this concept?
-
exactly my point.... the "past" we are not living in the past.... we need to keep it in mind so it doesn't repeat but... we are living in the present...
go ahead and poke.
lazs
-
A verifiable basis?
Dunno what the point you're trying to make is.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong but the topic was history lazs. :t
-
There is no religious or governmental institution in the world, no matter how noble it's intentions and righteous it's founding principles, that cannot be corrupted by base men.
Certainly there has been much evil done in the name of religion, but to stereotype all members of that religion because of the action of certain of its members is patently unfair.
Without doubt, the history of Christianity over the last 2000 years has been troubled. Having been founded on the kindest of human principles, the early Church survived persecution to establish a foothold in the mightiest empire in the ancient world, only to see those principles perverted and subsumed beginning with the Council of Nicaea and the depradations of the Emperor Valens.
The Church split into two branches, Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic. Of the two, the Roman Church became far more bellicose and corrupt. Many of its beliefs, the sacraments and excommunication, are non-scriptural and were often used to whip those who opposed the Church hierachy into line.
One of the great "sins" laid at the feet of the medieval Church by modern critics was the instigation of the Crusades. While the first Crusade was called by Pope Urban II, the European armies that marched into the Holy Land were a natural military and political reaction to a perceived threat, the unbridled expansion of Muslim military might. While it is politically correct these days to paint the Crusaders as blood-thirsty fanatics, the truth of the matter is that there were plenty of fanatics on both sides. Crusaders who remained in the Holy Land, living in close proximity to local Muslims, developed respect for, and friendship with, those Muslims.
The corruption of the Roman Catholic Church reached its height during the late Middle Ages. It is certainly no accident that growing discontent with Church corruption, wealth, and blatantly non-Christian teachings coincided with the invention of the printing press and the spread of learning. The revolt by thinking Christians against these evils brought on the Protestant Reformation, and began the process of returning Christianity to the principles upon which it was founded. The attempts by the Papacy to return Lutherans and other Protestants to the fold, led to a series of bloody conflicts in Germany, Spain, and elsewhere. The murderous attentions of the Inquisition, which are often cited in these posts as evidence of the evil of religion, were, in fact, directed at those who opposed Papal control of Christianity.
Yet the Reformation proved to be a watershed even in the history of Christianity...and benefitted not only Protestants but Catholics as well.
And yet, during the troubled history of the Church there have always been those who lived by Christ's example and strove to minister to the physical and spiritual needs of their fellow man. Who can deny that the Red Cross, the Civil Rights Movement, the abolitionist movement, and other great social and charitable organizations were founded by the Christian faithful.
So, you see, when some here on these boards cast sneering references to their belief that religion has done far more harm than good, they only reveal the shallowness of their knowledge of history and the depths of their own biases and lack of respect for the beliefs of others.
-
^^^ my point proven. Anything good is eagerly claimed as being done in 'christs example'... whereas anything bad is just 'not christian'.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
^^^ my point proven. Anything good is eagerly claimed as being done in 'christs example'... whereas anything bad is just 'not christian'.
ROFLMAO
You are joking right? That one has to win the "well duh!" award for clueless commentary otherwise. Hehehe. Classic.
-
Just curious: Why didn't Noah swat those two mosquitos? Talk about a wasted opportunity!
-
ripley... ok.. the topic is history. I have said... religion did not exist in a vacumn.... camalot did not exist. cruelty reigned. You jump back and forth in history and that is fine. You claim government is based on fact that is not true at all... government is based on fear of the people and any excuse to get more power over the people will be used.
It has allways been that way. if anything, religion was used and perverted by governments. The bible didn't create the inquisitions.... the government did. The bible didn't create or advocate the crusades... the government did.
lazs
-
You claim government is based on fact that is not true at all
No lazs I said that the governments decisions are based on facts, not the fear of supernatural. The first one follows logic, latter does not. Which also makes it a very very bad form of government.
-
ok... first of all.... government decisions are not based on fact but fear.... fear of the people.. Every decision government makes is to give it more power.... fear of cost or fear of security or fear of injury or.... the latest junk science.... fear of destroying the environment.... all are government tactics to gain control and suck money and freedom and hope out of people...
government will team with any group (including religious) who will give them more power and grow government.
Religion has no control over people unless they grant it to the religion.... government has armies and police and legions of beurocrats to keep tab on and jail you if you do not do as they say.
Sooo... why are you threatened by religion and not government? The "history" of religion is kings and tyrants using (perverting) religion in order to get what THEY wanted.... more power. to blame religion is to not be able to see the forest for the trees.
lazs
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
I have great faith that the Exodus did happen the way described in the Bible.
Science actually supports the events
From what you have said, science apparently supports that the events were possible, not that they happened.
-
government decisions are not based on fact but fear
What does the government fear in your opinnion?
-
Originally posted by MrRiplEy[H]
What does the government fear in your opinnion?
Killer rabbits.
-
ripley.... All government fears it's people. It is only by the peoples laziness and stupidity that government is able to rule them. No government can stand against a people united against them.... governments fear revolution more than anything. Governments fear that everyone will wise up at the same time.
on an idividual basis... those in power most fear the loss of power. There is nothing that they won't do or say in order to remain in power.
lazs