This forum is for discussing religious issues. The same standards of behavior apply as are spelled out on our home page in the introduction to Speak Out.
Post a comment
Well I se our city fathers have managed to squash other business that wanted to come to town. I guess they would rather the old hospital just sit there intil it falls down.
wow - looks like a clean slate - minus all the hate - i guess we can wait - but it's matter of fate - now don't think of this as bait - it won't be long at any rate ...
Yes, I accuesed Eric of terminating this blog because of the entry by someone awhile back requesting it be terminated. Sorry Eric. Zeke, I hope I don't come off with a lot of "hate", or even a little for that matter. I like to think I am just a critical thinker who critisizes any comments I do not think are logical or reasonable. Criticism is a lot different that hate. And perhaps your comment is more closely related to the religious right (and over zeolous religions in general) whose actions exemplify hate as News just referred.
I think that the predominate negative vibes, if you want to call 'em that expressed by the irreligious are other than hatred. I haven't seen hatred from that quarter. I have seen derision (regularly), scoffing, and airs of superiority, from all quarters. Come to think of it I really can't think of many examples of hatred, from anyone. I guess we are all more alike than any of us would care to admit. ;)
it's a hate crime - why does that automatically make it look like a Christian - Nationalist terror attack? maybe he's just a crazy ...
Zeke to my way of thinking all those Aryan Nation types are crazy. Yeah they all twist things, and rationalize that God is on their side. To me that is just facts. Does that make them typically representative of Christian faith? Of course not.
I don't think anyone on this blog represents them as typical. Maybe those of us who point out that they do proclaim they are Christians, should always add the proviso, "not that there is anything wrong with Christians, some of my best friends are". We do that for gay people, and other minorities. Somehow though, to me it seems a little skewed to do that for Christians who, in this country at least, are not a little minority subject to persecution.
Perhaps Christians who are offended by remarks pointing out that there are a lot of nut case killers who claim to be Christians should just assume that we are not talking about them.
I certainly wouldn't assume that Christians were talking about me, if they were excoriating an Atheist, or Secular Humanist mass killer. Come to think of it I can't think of any of those, but that is another discussion. ;)
Exactly what I was inferring Cheetah, a nut case is a nut case. I was not inferring however that the curious case that a lot of those killing nut cases claim to be Christians isn't worthy of examination, and discussion.
Is it merely because there are so many Christians in this country, and thus more so called Christian killers? Is that supposition supported by parallel ratios? Is there something about those imbued with a God, Gays, and guns mindset that provokes senseless massacres, if so what is the catalyst of that symbiosis, and why?
Do we lead the world in mass killings by single individuals unaffiliated with a concerted group effort to do so? If so we have a moral duty to determine why.
Poor old Pat Robertson. Not only can he not keep his ducks in a row, he is not even able to demonstrate that they ever hatched. ;)
Well said News. Carrying my metaphor forward most of his disciples seem full of half-hatched ideas.
i concur - my sentiments were that the dude was "wowoonab" ... as stated by cheetah ... no pass because of insanity ... just the thought that the man did not do this BECAUSE he is christian (if he really is or even claims to be) ... just that his actions were "whacko" related ... like so many others who do things for whatever crazy notion or reason (i.e. the texas army base shooter ... the folks who brought down the federal building in okc ... etc.)
We ALL need to find our way back to the middle.
"Crazy" people we also associate as being irrational. Although the vast majority of people who believe in a creator are good, honest people, it is the fringe of religion that exhibit "crazy" much more so than than secularists. Believing the bible or Koran are direct words of a deity is the start of irrational thought processes, but normally not BS crazy. However, the BS crazy people mostly are extremely religious. Atheists are less likely to blow themselves up because they know "this is it", no more after this life. However, that does not mean atheists don't get frustrated to the point that the pain of living outweighs the desire to live. Being irrational is a natural subset of religion. I admit this is all opinion on my part with no research by me to back it up. Another post I think was insinuating that it takes non-religious people to burn down churches. If that was what was implied, I personally believe the vast majority of church burnings are probably committed by religious zealots, not atheists.
The atheist regime of North Korea: January 1968-attack on the Presidential residence of South Korea, October 1983-terror bombing of the South Korean cabinet, November 1987-bomb taking down a South Korean airliner.
North Korea has the goal to reunite both Koreas under their banner of atheist-communist-worker paradise. These attacks were-are part of that strategy.
North Korea is a different animal. They have a belief system-juche-that centers on ourselves alone. They emphasize the atheist part first--to then achieve the Marxist paradise.
As for Truman--most nation politics do involve religious beliefs. When deciding on dropping the bomb, the recognition of Israel, intervention in Korea--Truman sought spiritual guidance and wrote how his Christian faith was instrumental in those decisions.
The "Battle Hymn of The Republic"/"John Brown's Body" got me to thinkin' about the American War Between the States. The participants on both sides committed many atrocities, all the while claiming the blessing of God for their actions, and their cause. While such acts were often terrorist activities, all done in the name of Jesus, do the perpetrators fit the label, Christian terrorists? Perhaps, but is not claiming religious support for the deeds during that war ancillary to the core motivations, rather than prime motivators? Were we once a nation chock full of Christian terrorists?
If not, how can we call any of the mass murderers of today Christian terrorists, or Muslim terrorists, as they are all motivated by multiple factors? Are any of us in a position to sort through the motives, determine which were motivated primarily by religion, and make the declaration that the offender/offenders were religious terrorists?
Is it moral to suspend punishment for perpetrators during war, especially as is done by the winning side, and only punish such activity when it disturbs relative domestic tranquility?
Thanks SC for the link; to say I enjoyed it would be, I think, the wrong response. ;)
I have long been a believer that if you know the important questions you need not sweat the answers, they will fall into place.
Many of you may be aware of "Zeitgeist: The Movie." I highly recommend watching to all the Christians out there, it will be a good test of faith which from my observation seems to be something God likes to see occur.
You kind of have to sit through all the fancy graphics, but it is highly educational. Look at it this way, Christians, you must know your enemy in order to be prepared to do battle.
I found it to be a nice synopsis of the history of theology. A load of theological research packed into two hours.
Originally released in 2007, I am sure many who are regulars here are already familiar. Those who aren't, I suggest a look.
Most Christians won't like what they see and hear, but I think they would at least gain some perspective on how athiests got where they are regarding worship of a supreme being. Therefore you might be a little more prepared for the "God vs. No God" debate.
I only recently saw it for the first time and admit I learned many things. Some I was well aware of from my Catholic education and my own reading, however, I was not aware of how closely Christianity and Judiasm are aligned with the ideology of ancient Egypt and other pre-Roman civilizations.
Like I said, next time you are up for a good old fashioned test of faith, dial that up on your Netflix. God will love you for it (well, or smite you, I don't really know, apparently that depends on who you ask).
Oops, I forgot the part about taking Parts II and III in Zeitgeist with a grain of salt. Gets a little out there into conspiracy theories that I feel are a little far fetched.
However, Part I is a good primer on the history of religion, as I stated.
OK, this is really funny for us secularists: If your religion....
Of our first fourteen presidents nine were Episcopalian, the church of the privileged class in early America, three were Unitarians, and one was a Deist. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/10/the-jefferson-lies-david-barton-factual...
Paul Ryan embodies the tea party spirit assuming all down trodden people are loafers who bring poverty totally on themselves. In pushing for a voucher system with Medicare and wanting to do away with Social Security, we could end up with millions of seniors in extreme poverty with no chance of life saving medical treatment other than emergency room, when it is often too late. Social Security is easily funded as the projected shortfall is many years away. Take the cap off of the gross income that you pay on SS and the problem goes away and millions of seniors (our kids and grandkids) have the safety net the rest of us have and those before us. With escalating medical costs, a voucher system would make Medicare impotent and the search for providers too complex to traverse. Paul Ryan is a traitor to our seniors and poor, but a darn good Catholic!
Any new news on our stolen statue? I hope they find it and throw away the key on the prison cell when they catch the deadbeat thiefs
Why do libs always claim when a crime is committed against the Muslim, the Christians did it? The libs are the first to say we shouldn't profile. Aren't they? The hypocrisy is all very confusing. But that is the whole purpose isn't it. Is any different to assume that all terrorist are Islamic radicals? Now we aren't even supposed to call them terrorists because they might me offended. What about offending the Christian is that ok? What happened to calling the person committing the crime a criminal? They committed a crime and should be punished for the crime. Does it matter what color or religion they are? Libs always play the race card when they have no other answer. They claim the other side are the racist when they are the ones that bring it up when it is not necessary. Libs always want to claim the moral high road but end up taking the low road when they are losing. Libs claim to be tolerant but they really hate anyone with a different opinion. They claim Christians are intolerant and we should be. As a Christian we should believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation and that we will have a place in heaven. We should believe that abortion is a sin, being gay is a sin, murder is a sin, destroying property is a sin, taking God's name in vain is a sin, etc. Is that intolerant? Sure it is but is that being more intolerant then a liberal. I don't think so. As Christians are we supposed to tolerate sin in the name of be tolerant or politically correct? If you are a Christian and tolerate or commit sin without speaking out or repenting then are you really a Christian? I know there is a real heaven and a real hell and we all are going to reside in one of them. Which one will you reside?
That's just it. Not EVERYONE is a christian. This is a point which you repeatedly overlook, furthermore being a non-christion DOES NOT MAKE SOMEONE IMMORAL.
What if you woke up tommorrow and the christians got everything they they wanted? What then? Would christians be able to function without an enemy? I'll bet the collection plates would be mighty empty.
This computer animation, created using new software called Arepo, simulates 9 billion years of cosmic history. Arepo can accurately follow the birth and evolution of thousands of galaxies over billions of years. Arepo generates the full variety of galaxies seen locally, including majestic spirals like the Milky Way and Andromeda.
For all you true believers, your god sure had a lot of cause and effect to control during those 9 billion years, as well as a lot of watching each and every one of you. Since I'm a non-believer, he didn't have to check on me though :-)
"Why do libs always claim when a crime is committed against the Muslim, the Christians did it?"
I believe most liberals (most) would believe it was "probably" committed by someone with hate for Muslims. However, that could be wrong as well. If we are looking for suspects and following probability, I would have to rate either extremely ignorant individuals or extremely religious individuals high on my suspect list, while giving a total pass to nobody. The extreme religious groups I'd have to consider are both Christian and Jewish for Muslims, but perhaps higher than that would be racist hate groups like skin heads, of which often use the name of their religion to justify their crimes on humanity. I would never think the average church going Christian or Jew would commit such a crime.
Wow, this hits home probably for most of us. Cyber bullying (blog bullying?). This is a fascinating 30 minute talk that might start off turning off some of you, but I think all of us on this blog will find value in this talk:
Very interesting Nana, it is a hell of a lot easier for an old geezer to approach the divine masculine, than for a younger guy trying to raise a kid by himself. That is just a reflection on my personal experience. I think for me it mostly has to do with time to think, whereas before I hardly had time to blink. Another reflection is that I never did really bust butt at the money game, but there were many times that I did for sustenance, and to attempt to provide my son an easier path than my own had been. Of course I now know that was in some ways a false premise for I obviously had no control over what hazards might be in his path. I think I will shut up now because I am clueless as to whether I am at all on point, or not. Not that it really matters. ;)
lol - WHAT???? Slater has thieves?????
You think maybe Beno came and got it and is keeping it until his repair bill is paid?
Libs also cry out that we shouldn't profile but what do they do? You really want me to believe that. One thing an unbeliever can never understand is what a Christian is. To become a Christian there is a change in the heart, you become a new creature, you are changed. The term Christian is used very loosely and claimed by many that are not. Anyone can claim to be a Christian but you can tell a real Christian from someone that just make the claim. They should stand out as someone different. We cannot define a Christian by worldly standards but by biblical standards. There are certain essentials of the faith that a Christian can't deny. There is only one God in three persons, Jesus was God in flesh, Jesus rose from the dead physically and salvation is by grace alone through faith. Any religion that denies one of these essentials are not Christian.
Jesus no more rose from the dead than did Santa Clause come to your house last night.
Secondly, you like every other self-proclamied christian merely cherry pick the things out of the bible that you choose to accept and forsake many others. If you truly lived up to the proclamations offered in the bible you would be in prison, but then again maybe you are.
The most impressive trait of humans is the art of self-delusion. It's a free country and you are free to delude yourself to your hearts content but don't expect the rest of us to swallow it.
Yup. I forgot to say that I took a job for less money so I would have more time with my son. The direct, and indirect benefits of that were in line with what was propounded in the essay.
Like I said unbelievers can never understand those things of God unless God grants it to them. It also is true that anyone that does not believe the essentials cannot become a Christian. You can't leave one of out and become a Christian it comes as a complete package. We serve a living God, an eternal God that has no beginning or end. He says he is the first and the last and that there is no other. We can't become God's although some of us would like to be. We cannot earn our way to heaven no matter how good we are if you don't know Jesus when you die you are going to hell. Are some that proclaim to be Christian going to hell? Yes! Are good people going to hell? Yes! Are religious people going to hell? Yes! Are Catholics going to hell? Yes! Are Muslims going to hell? Yes! Are Jehovah Witness going to hell? Yes! Are Baptist going to hell? Yes! There will be many that go to hell but only the redeemed will be in heaven. There will be people from all religions that go to hell because they denied Jesus. They didn't believe one of the essentials because it wasn't convenient. They didn't believe one of the essentials because it wasn't peer reviewed. They didn't believe one of the essentials because their friends didn't. They didn't believe one of the essentials because it wasn't politically correct. They didn't believe one of the essentials because they thought they were better then God. If you are one of them then I pray that you would seek God and find him. There is only one. We don't have a monument at his grave to honor him because the grave is empty, he is risen. Many religions have monuments to their God because their God is dead and dead God's can't help you. We are all sinners but some of us are saved by grace. Not by anything we did or can do only by the love of Jesus because he died for us. He alone can atone for our sins that only he can do. Maybe you had a bad experience in the death of a loved one. Maybe you went to church and someone made you mad and you hate Jesus for it. That's ok Jesus will accept you anyway just like you are.
News ~ "Or maybe it's just a bunch of hocus-pocus nonsense." I have prayed for you (and others in this forum) since I've started reading it. I tried (and failed miserably) to explain my beliefs to you. I tried to do it with love and not hate. Now it's in God's hands and I pray that one day you will believe! It's an unexplainable life changing event that I pray you will one day choose to experience. Until that day, like rr3 said, you won't understand what a Christian is. As much as you know about the bible and about Christianity, you won't understand it until you are one!
In related news; apparently Mr. Akin also wants school food programs taken away, if they are federally funded (reported by K C Star). How will all the underpriviledged unborn children cope with that?
Maybe it isn't 'legitimate' food that they are eating.
And in other news...how about that combover, Mr. Akin? It looks goofy. (OK, I admit I got personal there.)
You have been led to believe that you serve a living god when in reality what you serve is a collection plate.
Self-delusion is a common trait among the bi-peds and I thank you for being such a wonderful example for all of us to study.
You seem to be under the impression that "non-believers" just don't understand christianity. Actually I think it is the polar opposite is true.
So as for christianity, you say you understand it .... I say you fell for it.
IT I don't understand Akin's comb over. Why bother when there is so little to protect underneath it? ;)
ANY MORE NEWS ON THE STOLEN STATUE?
Enjoy this fantastic YouTube video on "Atheists On Religion, Science, And Morality" with a great panal. It even speaks to the idea that atheists maintain the higher ground when it comes to morality. Guys, you'll have to really concentrate on the content of what is being said as the host Cara Santa Maria's beauty is only surpassed by her intellect... wow
I'm with you. I have long held a belief that goes something like this.
The athiest must do what is right without fear of hell, or promise of heaven. He must make decisions based on more real consequences. Does it harm another? Does it deny anothers health, well being, or happines in favor of myself? Would my actions lead to others causing harm or denying another the right to enjoy the fruits of his labors? Are my actions and decisions leading to a better tomorrow for my children?
Morality and ethics do indeed exist in the absence of gods or "divine intervention." One must make choices to not do harm to others, not to deprive others of their possesions, or not to interfere in their pursuit of happiness because it is what is best for all, not just the one.
With religion, one must follow the rules or suffer the wrath of a vengeful god which will sentence you to hell for all eternity. So fear is apparently the significant motivator for leading a moral or ethical life from the religous perspective.
To me that just does not make much sense. It is the supreme being telling man to live a ethical life under the fear of unethical punnishment.
The teachings of Jesus fall into a very utopian, socialist category, I will admit that. Good words to live by in many cases.
However in todays vengeful, evangelical view of Christianity, the teachings of Jesus, to be loving, accepting, and do what is best for the many, not the few, have been shoved aside in a campaign to force Neo-Christianity into prominence in society by co-mingling politics and faith.
The reality is that politicians are using the religous voter to support their self serving agendas. Shameful behavior, if you ask me, but they are reaping significant rewards, so being weak humans of questionable ethics, they can not help themselves.
I will now wander off and watch the link you provided. Here's hoping to a better future for all of mankind. I say the sooner we can get past our primitave beliefs in mythology, the better.
Then perhaps we can quit praying for a better tommorow and start doing something for ourselves, by ourselves, to actually make it happen.
How absolutely hillarious that the opening advertisement on the link Rational posted regarding athiesm is a Crossroads GPS attack ad against Claire McCaskill.
Those religous right wingers and their antics.
News ~ You talking about rr3 "What makes you the authority on who is and isn't a Christian?" Then you talking to me "I know folks who are long-term, outstanding members of their congregations and parishes, well educated, devout Christians who could cite quite a few passages from the KJV Bible that they would say proves neither you or rr are true Christians." 1) What makes these Christians the authority over other Christians to where they can prove who is or isn't a Christian? As a Christian, it's not our job to tell people that they are/aren't Christians. That's Gods job on judgment day. 2) How do you prove someone is a Christian? It is a personal relationship with my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and no one can prove or disprove that I have that relationship.
News ~ I never claimed to be able to decide who is or isn't a Christian.
I define my beliefs as they apply to the world. Based on the Bible!
What I was meaning was that if you say you're a Christian, I'm not going to try to decide whether you are or aren't. My apologies, I wasn't clear. Also, it's not MY interpretation of the essentials. It's what the Bible says. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life, no man comes to the Father, except by me." That's a very clear message and I'm not sure how that can be interpreted any differently.
We actually agree on something!! You said "There is no such thing as magic in the real World, or, at the very least, thus far there is not 1 shred of proof that magic is real." I couldn't agree more!! I don't believe in magic. Magic is of the devil. What I believe isn't magic!
Would you stone your neighbor to death for working on the sabbath or sell your daughter into slavery? Would you perpetrate any of other horribly violent acts that are found in the bible? If not,why?
Why are we fighting the Taliban overseas when it would seem as if we have our own here at home?
...also, is the far right's view on abortion really about the sanctity of all life or that it might be destroying a potential soldier needind to fight for their future profits? Either way I'm don't buy ther sanctity of life arguement from the right.
WTF ~ No. No. Because a sin is a sin no matter if it's a little white lie or "working on the Sabbath." Jesus paid the price for our sins. He is the ultimate judge, not me.
As far as fighting the Taliban, I don't know. I think we need to get out of there and fix our own problems before we go out trying to fix the world.
I can't speak for all of us "far rights" but I do believe that life begins at conception. In Proverbs 31 the bible says "Speak for those that cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute" Those precious little babies cannot speak for themselves, so someone has to.
how is it you can pick and choose only certain aspects of the bible in which to obey?
The person that should do the speaking for those children is the mother who carries it, not you, not me and certainly no politician.
Where in the bible does it say that I have to stone my neighbor for working on the Sabbath??
BTW it seems as if the way we are opnely treating women and gays that we are seeing the genesis of our own homegrown taliban.
You mean, we're treating woment badly because we're telling women not to murder their own children? And gays because when asked a specific question about gay marriage, the owner of Chick-fil-a answered the way Christians should answer and now is accused of hate speach, yet there was nothing hateful about it?
Yes, because that decision is not Yours or Mine to make for the mother. Shall we post a govt' official in every bedroom and doctor's office? BTW Chic Fil-a donates a lot of money to anti-gay activists. This is far more than just a differnce of opinion, this is a movement towards legislative actions.
Anti-gay activists as in Focus on the Family and Exodus International? That's quite a stretch. Those companies do a whole lot of good!
Are these legislative actions you're talking about banning gay marriage to keep the sanctity of marriage in tact? If so, I'm all for it!!
Maybe we should outlaw Christianity? I'm all for that!
or perhaps we should take away your churches tax exempt status? You wanna make the laws based on your religious critera? Then you should at least pay your taxes.
What's the number one threat to the sanctity of marriage?.....divorce. Are you going to outlaw that? Who's sanctity anyway? that as establised by the individual or the church?
Yep, Leviticus is chock full of interesting ideas. I believe somewhere in the Old Testament is also where you find that being gay is an abomination.
I believe weaving a garment of two different threads and planting two different crops side by side are also subject to some pretty severe punishment in the bible also. Possibly stoning for both, I think.
Next up from the Christians usually is a ".....well, that's the old testament...."
So, like WTF said, how is it you chose to selectively enforce specific bible verses?
The answer is that for centuries governments, and the church, have re-interpreted the bible to mean whatever morality or rules that those in charge wished to impose on the "great unwahsed masses."
It is a very subjective source of ethics at best.
Additionally, someone show me where in the bible it says that life begins at conception. Yes, it says that a good Christian should speak for those who can not, etc., but I think you are taking that out of context.
Proverbs 31 deals with what constitutes a good king and how to rule justly. I believe it says no drinking, no womanizing, speak up for the destitute, and to judge fairly the needy and the poor. Then it goes on to describe the attributes of a good wife.
As most Christians say they believe life begins at conception, so who told you it was true? You won't find that in the good book, so apparently a politician, or minister, is the source, eh?
WTF ~ Now you're just throwing random things out there to try and anger me. Sorry, it's not going to happen.
News ~ 1) Because of the fact that it's a very touchy subject and pretty much everyone has a strong opinion on it one way or another, I usually don't bring up the topic. However, I will talk about it if someone, like WTF, does bring it up.
2) Thank you for answering my question. That was exactly my point. It's found in the OLD TESTAMENT. Before Jesus paid the price for our sins and died on the cross. That was also before he said "Those who are without sin cast the first stone."
3) If our definition of God was the same then we would both feel the same about magic being of the devil.
MyOPin do you believe that God speaks directly to you in your mind? If not, do you believe that God does speak directly to other folks minds? Thirdly, do you believe that God could if he chose to, speak directly to your mind? For clarities sake, I mean the voice of God actually delivering a message heard clearly by the recipient, but not heard by others.
From "The Wife of Noble Character"
"She opens her arms to the poor
and extends her hands to the needy."
How does that jive with cutting welfare and food stamps programs for the poor, Christians, and the attitude of Mitt Romney and his ilk that it's the poor folks fault they are poor so they just need to get over it?
I mean, if we are going to literally interpret the good book and base our system of laws on it.....
There it is. "The Old Testament doesn't count."
While I'm on a roll.
The justification for the anti-abortion stance of Christianity is based on the following verses.
Psalm 127:3 "Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward"
Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill"
I believe Exodus is 'Old Testament' is it not?
Ah yes, Old v.s. New Testament. Very convenient.
In my opinion. Do you believe in Santa Clause? If not, why? Please be specific.
I want to speak up for a moment for the many good Christians, that we seldom, if ever, hear from on this blog. I hasten to add that the Christians who do post here (mostly Pentacostals, and Evangelicals) may be good people too. None of us are privy to their daily lives, any more than they are to ours.
Those of whom I speak are the mainstream Christians, the Episcopalians, Presbyterian Church U.S.A., Society of Friends, even certain branches of the Baptist church, and many others. Yes, and I must not forget those solitary unaffiliated Christians who quietly live, and let live.
My personal interactions with them have informed me that many in their actions, stemming from their grounding, i. e. the Christian traditions, and beliefs to which they give priority, result in similar societal views and active responses to it held by me, an old atheistic free thinker. It leads me to believe that it may be that a good heart often rises above whatever theology, or philosophy is its base.
I do wish that more of that bent would post here, and share a differing slant than the polar opposites that presently hang out here, self included.
OKR, you are the mediator extraordinaire.
My comments, while I fully reconize are inflamitory to most devout Christians, are not intended to bash specific folks, or even Christianity.
I believe that religion has helped many through trying times, and provides comfort and guidance to many who need it desperately.
However, I do not think that the comingling of religion and government is in any way what-so-ever a good idea. Our federal government is secular. Period.
I, therefore, have significant disdain for the "Religous Right" who pander to folks of faith and hoodwink them into voting for politicians who are merely spouting rhetoric regarding manufactured problems in society.
The Republican Party does not in any way represent policies or ideology that favors working class Americans. The middle class income has stagnated for the past decade while wealth has become concentrated at the top of our system. This occurred, for the most part, due to the economic and regulatory policies of the Bush Administration.
I am motivated to do battle with all of these so called societal problems of gay rights and abortion, constitutional ammendments based on the bible, and the denial of climate science becasue they are being used to buy votes in order to create an economic climate that favors those who least need additional wealth ahead of working people and the poor.
As a famous political advisor said in the 1980's, "why in the world would a working man vote for a Republican?" That was the basis for the political strategy that had fiscally conservative politicians claiming to support issues important to working class religous folks in order to get them to unknowingly vote for politicians that favored corporations and the wealthy.
It has worked like a charm and has left us with the shambles of an economic system and society that we now endure.
So, no more middle of the road for me. I am tired of illogical reasoning and ignorance of facts clouding our policies and decision making in government at every level.
Christians have now tied themselves into politics with these social issues that were just used as red herrings to sway votes in the first place. I find that bad for our democracy. Most philosophers throughout history agree that a succesful demcoracy requires voters who know what they are voting for. I am not sure that is what is occurring in America today.
SD I agree with nearly every word you said. The only difference I have with your comments is, "Christians have now tied themselves into politics with these social issues that were just used as red herrings to sway votes in the first place." I would merely add at the start of that sentence a single word, MANY.
I know of some Christians, and some personally, that are at the ramparts defending every human rights cause that you, and I espouse. I believe that you also know such folk.
My commentary that you addressed had a multifold purpose. To mediate, as you correctly discerned. Also to subtly point out without offending to the mostly fundementalist Christians who post here that they are not the ONLY Christians, and shame on them if they feel superior, or God's ONLY chosen people. They simply need look to the self sacrificing acts of those others I mentioned, self sacrificing acts stemming from their devotion to Jesus Christ, and done in his name, in order to rid themselves of arrogance, and restore humility to themselves. What sort of hubristic nonsense is it that leads anyone to believe that only their particular Christian clique is embraced by Jesus Christ? Do they not think their Lord is wiser than they, and may see true Christianity in some of those that differ from them? If they do not then they are dethroning their Lord, or at least placing their own throne beside his. I pity such folk for I consider them mad.
Finally I hoped by making such mainstream Christians the focus of a commentary on this blog to draw a few into the discussion. Such broadening of viewpoints would be good for us all.
I am glad that you responded to what I said because it made me realize that subtlety is a close cousin of timidity, and at times needs to be abandoned.
You are right, I didn't leave much room for Compassionate Conservatives (oxymoron? Ronald Reagan?) or Christian Democrats in my rant.
I tend to speak in absolutes in order to emphasize my points. I am well aware that not all Christians are Dick Cheney or Fred Phelps.
There are always exceptions to everything, and very, very few absolutes in the world. These exceptions do not, however, excuse the behavior of the majority.
If Christians really want to stand for the teachings of Jesus, then they better start speaking up to the folks in charge of their institutions. To have preachers on Sunday telling the flock how to vote should be totally unacceptable. Yet somehow it is tolerated.
Not saying all preachers in all churches do it. But most find a way to sneak in some subltle hints, and many are card carrying, bible thumping, neo-cons and dang proud of it. They have undue influence over the "flock" and when they start using it to undermine the federal government, I begin to wonder if they create more harm than good.
Also not saying the federal government is infallible. Plenty of mistakes made on both sides of the aisle. What I do know is that the blind faith voter manipulation being done by the Religous Right is bad for our future and distracts from issues that are truly important to our future.
I am a devoted secularist and would much prefer decisions made by research, data collection, analysis, formation of solutions, and implementation of said solutions.
"Because God said so" has been used way, way too many times throughout history for egregous acts. I would much prefer we not have that be the basis for our system of laws. How many wars do we have to fight because "God is on our side?"
Religion and blind faith belong in church. Logic and reason belong in the courtroom. Solutions to civil, societal, and economic concerns belong in our representative legislature informed as I stated above.
Regarding religous effect on societal morality, I am all for the 10 commandments, once you leave the first four out. As I have said many times, you don't have to have God, or the Bible, to have ethics and morality. There are plenty of places to read, study, and analyze the results of immoral behavior or quesitonable ethics without resulting to mythology.
History is a great teacher. How about we just start with something along the lines of "Let's try to not repeat the mistakes of the past." We can then move on toward "What rules and regulations make for a successful and prosperous society?"
If folks are not scared by todays right wing fundamentalists, they should be. You do realize that there are Christians out there that think God is causing global warming so we should not do anything to stop it as it is the intial phase of the Rapture? That sort of thinking, if allowed to permeate our system of laws will guarantee our destruction. Not in one lifetime, but eventually.
Gotta say you guys are preaching to the choir with your posts retorting to my recent ones. :)
I doubt that there is a more devoted secularist than me around these parts, though I do know of one Congregationalist minister here in OKC that matches my zeal. ;) He is an anomaly in these parts, and has written a book entitled "Saving Jesus From The Church". Doesn't that title pique your interest? His name is Robin Meyers, he is a hero of mine, partly because he is an activist who truly traces Jesus' steps. I believe that there is not a hypocritical bone in his body. Check him out at the following link.
While I'm at it there is another great Christian here in OKC by the name of Nathaniel Batchelder, who is director of The Peace House. He is also worth getting acquainted with so I urge you to check out the following link. http://peacehouseok.org/
Back when the Iraq War was being birthed, and a few of us here were screaming NO! No! No! at the top of our lungs, I became acquainted with the miniscule, but vibrant local anti-war crowd. We had our marches, downtown, including parading past the bombing memorial (ironic huh?) about eight hundred to a thousand strong. The Daily Oklahoman, deemed the worst metropolitan newspaper in our nation wouldn't even give us that, reporting four hundred, as counted by the OCPD, whose officers along the parade route leered at us with a look of hatred on their faces that would have done Hitler's SS proud.
It was a lonely time for folks like us in OKC.I had the honor, and pleasure of reciting several of my anti-war poems at a rally. The hearty cheers from a "crowd" of about two hundred that greeted my endeavor buoyed my spirits.
I believe that at least half, perhaps more of that audience were activist Christians. How strange it was for an old atheist, I felt loved, and supported, as I rarely have in a group setting, during my life. So, I have to admit my bias favoring Christians as the thread of this conversation continues.
Was God a swimmer before he walked, or has he always been just a flyer? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/22/big-bang-phase-change-water-froze-ice_n...
Smart Dog: "I have long held a belief that goes something like this..."
Well said. You really are a "Smart Dog" :-)
Smart Dog: "Christians have now tied themselves into politics with these social issues that were just used as red herrings to sway votes in the first place. I find that bad for our democracy. Most philosophers throughout history agree that a succesful demcoracy requires voters who know what they are voting for. I am not sure that is what is occurring in America today."
Basically, as one of my atheist heros proclaimed "Religion poisons everything". It is apparent we are swinging toward a theocracy. A Christian theocracy would be no better than a Muslim theocracy (Iran as an example). Secular democratic societies are where we are slowly heading, I hope. "Imagine No Religion"?
"Hello Walter, I'm glad your home."
"Me too June, how was your day.
Fine, I had a nice talk with God, he is such a sweetheart."
"I talked to him also,he said I had to kill Walter Jr."
"Did he say why?"
"Yes he said because it would please him."
" That's what he said when we killed our other son Will."
Well sort of June...he said that was God's Will."
"Well our Father knows best."
"Intelligence and courtesy not always are combined; Often in a wooden house a golden room we find"
Nana: "I have HAD IT with the freaking hypocrisy of the 'pro-life' crowd..."
One of my favorite rants!!! So "right on" Nana. Again, like Hitch said, "religion poisnons everything". Unfortunately, Nana, the pendulum has swung back toward the 1950's, and it is very sickening. I hope we can get the vote out and take back the House, keep the Senate, and retain the Presidency. But, it is very scary with the religious right married to the Tea Party, directing the GOP's social agenda. Can you believe their platform is against abortion for rape and incest as well? This is totally driven by religion and nothing else. All we can do is "hope" that there are enough conservative women that understands this is no longer about being fiscally conservative, but about religious idiots moving us toward a theocracy. And that is why so many of us are so passionate about keeping church and state separate. Get everyone out to vote!!!
Nana, the GOP deserves ALL the criticism we can throw their way. Their main appeal in the past was fiscal conservatism. The polar opposite for liberals is that we believe in social programs to help those not so fortunate, often at the expense of overspending. Fairly simple differences, and compromise was possible. The GOP is now the party that supports the majority of the wealth accumulating at the top, and as you accurately depict, where some trickles down. The rich are such a minority that they have no choice but to bring together all sorts of social agendas, otherwise they could not stay in power with their trickle down policies. Unfortunately, the religious right has found the GOP with open arms, along with libertarians and fairly illiterate groups that are primarily racist or gun freaks who believe the liberals want to take away their guns. That is a coalition of the super rich, racist, ignorant, and religulous. It is a very mean spirited group who also believes that their tax dollars are all going to lazy individuals who don't want to work, mostly non-whites. As the money keeps accumulating at the top, and as more of it leaves the bottom, the more it appears that the people with money are the only ones paying taxes. Losing the middle class is exacerbating the tax problem. This group is also filled with such hate that they won't even accept and respect of our president. We knew GW was dumb (for a president) but we accepted and respected the office, something the GOP will not do. As you said, they are trying their best to keep many of the poor and elderly from voting in key areas of the country in our next election. Our only hope is that the pendulum does swing back and forth, eventually getting closer to the middle. The only way the middle can be approached this year is for democrats to win big time, otherwise the right will be emboldened to take us all the way to a third world theocracy. I don't think voting has ever been more important than in this next election. I wish the NRA people and the anti-abortion people could understand that they are giving power to a group that won't be happy until they have all the money and power leaving their future generations in destitute poverty. They won't be able to afford guns and they'll wish they had access to birth control, but it will be too late. Yes, that is years down the road, but that is the potential ramifications of sleeping with the enemy.
Having Libertarians directing the GOP also threatens our entire infrastructure. Libertarians want to live in their own fortress of solitude (anyone read Huxley?) with their own arsenal and pay very little or no taxes. That's another fine partner the GOP is sleeping with.
Nana: "The rest of it - certainly no argument from me, except that what most 'conservatives' refuse to understand is that their contradictory stands are extremely financially expensive to the rest of us. Wars are expensive; cutting social services on the front end leads to massive over-spending on the back end; unequal and poorly-constructed trade and tax policy that favor the few cost the many; ignoring the planet is fatal..."
Absolutely "right on". And besides ultimately being more expensive, regardless of whether some disbelieve that, it is just plain "WRONG" (hateful, selfish, mean spirited, and founded in a religious interpretation of the bible to their liking -- justifies their hate on immoral grounds).
News I appreciated your comment regarding God's Wrath, in the form of a Holy Hurricane, bearing down on the Tampa located Republican Convention. As I drove through eastern Kansas over the last several days, and noted the devastation dispursed by The Divine to the devout in the form of drought, and having already witnessed duplicative disaster dealt by the Deity in Missouri, and Oklahoma, all I could say was D-D-D-Darn it.
How many messages is The Big Guy gonna have to send to his acolytes before it dawns on them that He is displeased with their devotion to the desultory, instead of decree, as announced in His last incarnation?
All you have to do is look at a drought map of the United States to note that He has focused his most threatening wrath on the heart of the Bible Belt. There where his loudest proclaimers of fealty are concentrated he expresses His might.
One would think that sign, along with the sign given to the super-concentrated, misunderstanding minions at the Convention, where his name will be called more often than Mitts, and nearly as often as Reagan's, would finally awaken them, and they would be borne again at a rapid pace to reason. God is probably thinking that he has never born a load so heavy, or unwieldy, and will grow ever more vexed.
If they don't change their ignorant, and evil ways, if they don't jump out of bed with Mammon cloaked in a Wall Street wardrobe, if they don't some how recall who it was that the Junior Member of the Triune gave his greatest compassion there will be worse to come.
If Romney and the Regressives take hold of all in Washington, Pennsylvania Avenue may become nothing more than a yawning chasm, and the overheated heartland a foreshadowing of hell fire.
I am glad I am not a fundamentalist Christian as I would have no place to run, no place to hide. See what he has done to you where you cluster together? What next? Perhaps he will share his latest wrath, with Alabama, and Mississippi.
Hello Down There!
You may be wondering down there in your limited way,
why I postponed your convention, and put it off a day.
I want you to think again about what you are to say.
If you don't change the message, it won't help to pray.
You said you were the most devoted, I took you at your word,
For thirty years I've spoken, but you've not heard a word.
Now you've made me angry, and I may bring your end,
For thirty years you've not heeded, all you've done is sinned.
The least of brethren you abandoned, and ground into the dirt,
Instead of good, and brotherhood, all you've done is hurt.
You aspired to be, and abetted the greedy, and the rich,
and cast those who protested aside, and into a ditch.
Know that now is near the time of your last chance,
not rapture will you enjoy, hell is where you'll dance.
Okr, really enjoyed your poem!
Thanks RT. :)
I did screw up a line of it. It was late, I had just gotten home from traveling for several days. I meant to say:
You said you were the most devoted, I took you at your word, (preceding line)
For thirty years I've spoken, but nothing have you heard. (corrected line)
For thirty years I've spoken, but you've not heard a word. (incorrect line)
SC - You finally put into words what so many of us were thinking - and I for one appreciate it.
No that it wil make any difference.
Athiesm is not an attack on religion.
Athiesm is simply the choice not to believe religous dogma.
Athiests would like very much to return to a secular government, which does not base our system of laws on the bible, the Koran, or any other old dusty book of parables.
If that is an attack on religion, then how so?
Christians should feel free to believe whatever they wish and worship whatever they wish. In fact, they are quite free to do so.
Just stay out of the legislature and court house. That is the place for facts, logic, reason, and debate of which rules make for the most successful society and how they should be applied.
I know of no athiests who are calling for a ban on religion of any kind. If anything, the athiest looks at the believer with curiosity, and in many cases, sympathy.
That is until the believer begins to feel that everyone should live, think, and believe the same things as he, or begins to use religion as a tool to manipulate voters, or courts, or to refuse to follow the laws of the country they live in "for religous reasons." That is where the problems begin.
I have been gone for a little while. I get back and find things have gotten Heavy here. I got a question. Why do any of you pay any attention to this fella from Australia?
Speaking for myself only RD, it is because I find him a bright, and challenging free thinker. He is particularly astute regarding economics.
I appreciate that he can be perceived abrasive, and no holds barred, but most of us get a little feisty at times.
Maybe I am just a weird old coot, but I like both he, and Smokin' Cheetah, who fight tooth, and nail. Both are the antithesis of boring to me.
There was an interesting article in the "New York Times Magazine" today regarding Atheism. I think several of you may find it interesting.
I generally root for the lions.
As in Christians, and lions? LOL
Yup. Although I do make some exceptions for Presbyterians.
Randy Travis has been "out of it" for quite sometime. Whether that pre-dated his Christian conversion, was precipitated by conversion, or a consequence of conversion, remains a question. It is at least coincidence.
Mostly, I don't care. :)
Aaah the sweetness of the night sky. :)
In reference with what I posted here is a link to Dick Morris reporting on this as many of you know he is responsible for saving Bill Clinton from himself and was one of many who was instrumental in his reelection bid.
Can a Christian vote in an election when we do not have a Christian to vote for? We have to vote for the candidate that is the closest to biblical principles and morals. Will there ever be a perfect candidate? No because Jesus died over 2000 years ago. There are certain things a Christian can't vote for:
A candidate that support the murder of unborn babies for convenience.
A candidate that supports infanticide.
A candidate that supports gay marriage in direct violation of biblical principles.
A candidate that claims to be a Christian but by his actions clearly cannot be.
A candidate that support nationalized health care when fully implemented will limit care based on age.
We have one candidate though:
That supports life from conception.
Does not support infanticide.
Supports traditional marriage as God intended.
Is not a Christian but does not claim to be.
Does not support Obamacare.
This is just a few of the major differences in the candidates. As a Christian the choice is clear. The choice should be clear with good people even if they aren't Christian.
Why do you just write in god and leave the rest of us alone?
the Earth is Full - this 16 minute video talk on TED is quite interesting. I'm curious as to how many of you think this talk contains truth or is swayed by the left media. I think it is grounded in science and very true, and absolutely apolitical. Neither party has the will to address any of these issues, and possibly because in practicality there is nothing either party can really do about it. Please provide your take on it?
Whoops, forgot to provide the TED link I jusst mentioned....
Very well said - news - but I have a quandry for you ... You used the biblical description of Jesus' ascension to begin yout treatise. So I would ask - have you read in the book of Revelation about the "New Jerusalem" or "New Heaven" - where there is no light needed because the Lamb (Jesus) IS THE LIGHT??? If that's the case - Jesus could very well travel at the speed of HIMSELF. However - if there truly is a new heaven waiting to descend on the earth - he may not have needed to leave the universe at all. Maybe He just went home.
And to everyone concerned - I thought you all to be much more intelligent than to throw about thoughts and other writings concerning God causing a hurricane to break up the Republican Convention. How can you attribute something so common as a hurricane and the placement thereof to a being you do not believe in? Or maybe you just belive in Him when it can be used to defame and degrade others. Grow up - Get a life - etc. PS - I probably will not respond to any attacks or slanderous posts referencing this post.
And furthermoe - would that same Hevaenly Weatherman now be held responsible for moving the president's accepatnce speech at the Democratic Convention to a smaller, indoor venue? He must be CRAZY! Or maybe He's just so sick of both parties that He is trying to mess with their minds.
"We need a government that stands up for the hopes, values and interests of working people, and gives everyone willing to work hard the chance to make the most of their God-given potential."
What are the Democrats doing now? Borrowing God to make their platform look more acceptable to the general public? How dare they drift from the "mainstream" thought that God is either dead or non-existent.?
LOL....enjoyed Jesus the space traveler, it was a nice mix of science, and myth. Who says science, and religion must be mutually exclusive in every way? Humor is a medium that may meld any seemingly disparate entities.
It also caused me to wonder if Jesus has stopped by any of the Mormon's secret nine planets during his celestial travels. Perhaps so. Perhaps he was welcomed by Mormon old souls from the lost tribes, and they remenisced about the good times they had when Jesus vacationed in America. ;)
Surely gb you are not of the opinion that all those folks at the Democratic convention are atheistic? LOL
Frankly to even be at a convention as a delegate is an indication that one is conditioned to believe in myths, distortion, and emotional decisions, over rational ones. The biggest breeding ground for that mindset in America is religion. ;)
Aw...I don't necessarily believe all the B. S. I just wrote, but I thought it was funny.
Maybe not atheists ... but like those at the Republican Convention - lemmings to say the least.
Enjoyed your post by the way.
"Can science create a problem that it cannot solve?" That is a good question Cheetah. I pondered it on its own merit while trying to ignore that it is turning another statement on its heel. :)
I think that it is a question that can not be answered other than, "I don't know" because the search for a solution theoretically may extend to the end of infinity. Until the search ends the hope for a solution exists, thus we will never know if it is solvable.
The quote precipitating your remark, "Can God create a rock that he can not lift", would on the part of many staunch believers have to be answered yes because their God can do anything. That response rests entirely on emotion driven faith. Faith does not require subjection to the laws of logic, nor the rules of rational thought. There is no compelling religious demand for an answer beyond "yes", because theology is a different discipline than science.
The answer to the second question, after exposing it to scripture, from a thoughtful, and informed religous view is again "who knows, maybe not". The closest the Bible comes to claims of omniscience is to state that God is Almighty. But then scripture also confesses that God can not sin, and that God can not lie. So God in his autobiography hedges his bets. ;)
I find it deliciously ironic that a similar tough question turned to address Christianity, then Science is answered, I don't know. When that is considered it ought to stimulate humility in both disciplines.
Smok'n, let me answer you question.... YES, science can create a problem it cannot solve. Now, what is your point? Are you comparing what science can achieve and HAS achieved with the that little book(s) written by wandering tribesmen about their imaginary friend? If that book fills a void for you or anyone, I have no problem with that, but you sure can't compare it to the achievements science has made.... can you?
Libs alway whine that they don't want someone's philosophy of religion, politics or science down there throats. Hmmmm! Yet they are always will to cram their philosophy up ours. Tolerance? Hardly Hypocrisy? Most definitely!!
Are you being obtuse, or just ornery r by making that comment immediately following ND's? The gist of liberal ND's comment was live, and let live.
By the way if I didn't believe that maxim myself I would slash you to pieces. ;)
There may be more than 2 people up for sainthood in the Catholic church. The only 2 I am aware of are Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II.
There are people who state that neither is qualified; due to lack of 2 miracles each.
I do not profess to have any knowledge of that issue. My question is:
Which of the 2 is most deserving of the sainthood?
Even non-religious people ought to have an opinion on this.
There are many unbelievers who want to hold Christians to things in the bible that don't hold true today. The OT says gays should be put to death. Does that hold true today? No Why not? For one we don't live in a theocratic system where God's laws are enforced by the government. I don't think the libs today would have like to live back in that time. The harshness of the OT law was to keep the Messianic line pure so that Jesus could be born, die on the cross, be resurrected, and provide redemption to God's people. If we would have lived before Jesus came to earth we would have lived under those laws. After Jesus came as the ultimate sacrifice we no longer need the harshness of the OT laws. So should we execute homosexuals? No more than we should execute an adulterer. However we should not promote their sin. Moral law has no expiration date. Homosexuals never want to debate on the moral issue, they want to call it an 'alternative lifestyle' instead of what it is 'SIN'.
There are those that think the bible does not consider homosexuality a sin. Well they haven't done their homework because it is clear that it is not approved by God. Of course if you believe there is no God than you can live how you want but the bible tells us there will be consequences as described.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and 1crawling creatures.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
Re: your question IT. I obviously don't believe in saints, but in my opinion Mother Teresa in a no brainer over JP2. I have some doubts about a person who was likely the Paterno of the priesthood. ;)
rr3 the song at this link is dedicated to you. My intent in posting it was to help acclimate you to the wonderful diversity of life in the twenty first century through the medium of a prescient twentieth century song.
1. And a fire belching God with smoke pluming from his nostrils flapped his giant bat like wings from which a huge wind blew, and the wind shrieked through the giant talons at the end of the wings,and he roared that he was angry, and added that he stayed angry,and a chilling wrath was on his countenance.
2. And some men frozen by eternal fear abiding in their hearts heard, saw, smelled, and felt this God; for fear was their norm, and their norm was not a smiling fat guy who overflowed a bar stool while drinking beer. And they took comfort for fear was their comfort, fear was their guide, and they had often awoken from sleep in the dead of night screaming, and their children awoke screaming in the night, and their children's children did the same.
3. And they told all they saw of this glorious threatening presence, and pleaded for all to supplicate because they could not understand that many did not live with comforting fear in their hearts, and that those could not understand joy birthed by exultant fear.
4. And so they went about praying in the manner of prey. ;)
We live in a world that is hostile to Christianity. Don't believe it just go to a busy street corner and start proclaiming the word of God and see what happens. Just turn on the TV and we can see the sins of abortion, homosexuality, paganism, and the occult openly promoted. Unbelievers are the preachers and teachers unknowingly spreading a false message. They want Christians to conform to secular society and we can't, to do so would deny God. Why do unbelievers not like a believers thoughts and opinions on God, the Bible or church? It forces them to see their sin and satan doesn't like that. Too many Christians want to rest in their easy chairs while our freedoms slowly are taken away by a government more consumed with itself than being for the people. We see false religions like Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, etc. embraced and even granted special rights. Satan has fragmented the Christian into so many denominations we don't have a united front yet we make up a large percentage of the population. The homosexuals tiny in number have a united front and loud voice in the media. Do you think the media would cover or promote a Christian event the same as a homosexual one? The women's movement has done more damage to the Christian family then they would ever admit. What about the lib media? They contribute to the moral decay by promoting immorality in TV, movies and radio. If the Christians don't wake up we will wake up one day in bondage because the enemy never sleeps. To stand up for God may cost us in this world but one day we will get our reward and it will be better than we could ever imagine. God has made us that promise and God has never broken a promise. There are those that don't want us to believe, they don't believe so they will try to convince others to not believe, unknowingly spreading the word of the enemy. Many think that if they don't believe in hell then it isn't real, they want to put God in a box and not allow him to operate outside of it. Who made the box? God or you!
Well r what do you think your God will do to you if you do not do exactly what he says, or grovel at his feet begging forgiveness for every slightest slip up? Don't even want to think about that do you? Or, maybe you do like to think about that. ;)
Rr3: "They want Christians to conform to secular society and we can't, to do so would deny God. Why do unbelievers not like a believers thoughts and opinions on God, the Bible or church?"
No, not at all rr3. We want christians and muslims to quit pushing what we see as irrational claims down our throats in government and education. We can easily co-exist if you'd just quit trying to save the rest of us with your insanity.
" It forces them to see their sin and satan doesn't like that."
This is the irrational stuff we don't like. Live your life without spewing this crazy stuff out to the rest of us and we can get along just fine.
" Too many Christians want to rest in their easy chairs while our freedoms slowly are taken away by a government more consumed with itself than being for the people."
A government is "for the people" only when it takes everyone's personal liberty to heart and doesn't interfere with our personal lives involving life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, as long as our actions do not interfere with those inalienable rights of others. It can be a fine line, but over religious zealots want to trample all over those rights.
"We see false religions like Islam, Mormonism, Jehovah Witness, etc. embraced and even granted special rights. Satan has fragmented the Christian into so many denominations we don't have a united front yet we make up a large percentage of the population. "
This really shows why religion poisons everything. Which ones of these would ever claim to be a "false" religion? None of them, yet they all want to push their brand on everyone else. In our country, it is primarily the christians that are granted special rights. We secularists want no religion to be given special rights over us or any other religion.
"The homosexuals tiny in number have a united front and loud voice in the media. Do you think the media would cover or promote a Christian event the same as a homosexual one?"
When you openly push to limit an individual's right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness when they do nothing to hinder your rights, you should expect to be called out on such bigotry. Why do you feel you should be allowed to limit those individual rights of others?
Smok'n: "@ RT: Can you give an example of a problem that science created but cannot solve? I am genuinely interested in knowing."
No, but the question was whether anyone believed that science could come up with a question it cannot solve, not whether I could come up with one. A harder question in my mind is "why are you asking what appears to be a somewhat ridiculous question"? I could take a guess at that one, and I'm pretty sure it has to do with irrational belief.
I've never really understood the Satan thing.
I can believe that a God is omnipotent and omniprescient; so given that case... why let Satan survive?
I also understand the prospect of a redeemer, but if things were set up properly, there would be no need.
I think it's something other than a Satan causing our problems; I think it is an early misinterpretation of the Bible, and everything has been based on that misinterpretation. Most people that think as I do, believe that the Catholic church early on 'changed' things a bit, to become the money making operation that they very successfully became. It also helped them to control the masses, back when they were out killing non-believers, and it gave them an excuse for doing do. Sound familiar?
That doesn't make me, or others like me non-believers, it just means we don't necessarily follow organized dogma.
For something to be accepted as factual in the real world, it must be able to be proven through peer review of, and replication of, the methods of collecting and analyzing data and the results determined from that analysis.
Once a theory becomes accepted fact, it is subjected to continuous testing of whether it is still true. Many physicists have spent years either proving Einstein's relativity true, or attempting to prove it false. So far, none have succeeded in the latter.
I can go out and conduct experiments that prove any scientific fact. Repeatedly. Period.
Next thing is the "scientific method" which simply stated says that for every question that you answer you will also find more questions to ask. This too is easily proven.
Once an experiment is done and analyzed, knowledge of the subject is increased and we now know more about what we don't know of the subject matter and can therefore ask additional questions. This is not mystery, it is pure philosophy.
The blind man can not question things of the visible world as he has no idea what to ask or even what he does not know.
This of course requires one to understand the old premise that "There are things you know, things you know you don't know, and things that you don't know that you don't know. It's that last one that gets you in trouble."
So any increase of knowledge in any subject area will always lead to additional questions to be answered. It is the way of our reality.
So, to answer Cheetah's question, "Can science create a problem that it cannot solve?"
I feel first you have to understand that the execution of the scientific method does not create anything except knowledge. It clarifies what one knows, and what one doesn't know. There is no way to get to what you don't know you don't know without starting somewhere.
That is what is so difficult about real big scientific discovery, one can only build on what is already established as the truth. It takes massive intellect these days to find the boundaries of what is already known and to determine whole new realities such as the Higgs, or any other of the other aspects of quantum mechanics, for example.
So, it is applied science (engineering, design, invention, etc.) that can create things, such as problems. However, this is merely the application of knowledge gained through the scientific method, not "science."
Science, the noun, is pretty a pretty darn general category that is huge.
Also, men can use knowledge gained through applied science to create problems. We know that all too well.
Now to make a giant assumption, I will guess that Cheetah meant that with his question. Can mankind apply scientifically gained knowledge to create a problem that can not be solved?
Of course, the answer to that is yes, if one stays within the framework of current knowledge.
Most great thinkers have come to the conclusion that while you may create a problem with current knowledge that can not be solved with current knowledge, the fact that you now have identified the problem means that the scientific method can be applied to the study of that problem, thereby allowing for increased knowledge to be gained and a solution to be found.
So, if we operate in a world, or society, where there is free application of knowledge and a continuous search for increased understanding of the physical world then all problems can eventually be solved. They may be created with the current level of knowledge, but as long as we continually strive for increased understanding and knowledge, we can solve the problems that we create.
It is when we capitulate, and decide that we have all the answers at hand and there is no need for increased knowledge, that we resign ourselves to the realm of living with "unsolvable problems."
We are doing it right now. Climate change is a fact that we are going to live with for generations. Does not matter to me if you believe it is a hoax, let me assure you it is not.
Yes, applied scientific knowledge could solve the problem, but mankind has to want to solve it and right now it does not appear that enough folks want that to happen. We have many who think we know all we need to know on the subject and are willing to capitulate and chose not to resolve the problem.
This also hits on my disdain for religion. It seeks to state that all the knowledge lies in the scripture and there is no need for anything else. Those fundamentalists that refuse medical care are a fine example of the foolishness of that position.
Climate change? Just ignore it and say a prayer? Sheesh. I don't think that's going to get it done.
It's funny how those that claim tolerance really don't practice it. The response to my last post really reveals the hatred for Christianity by the unbeliever. Basically they don't want to hear it and the Christian needs to shut-up. Yet we need to listen to the unbeliever! Such hypocrites!! I don't like to hear whining liberals but I would never call for them to be silenced. If a friend wants to cheat on his wife should I stay silent by not saying that I disagree with his actions and I think he is wrong? Would that be a friend? I can tell you about God but it doesn't mean that you have to believe it. No different than the whining lib telling me about global warming and we have to accept electric cars because we are running out of oil. Does that mean that I have to believe it? Those that have no God will always find something they can worship. Government, science, global warming, abortion, homosexuality, occult, false religions, and the list is endless as to what people will worship. Then some think they have the handle on "rationality". Really! Where did they get it? Don't know it just happened. One thing I do know is that there are not any dead atheist. We think we have control in this life then why can't we control death? We don't even know when we will die and if we did how would we live? If we knew the exact time we would die what could we do to change it? God is in control always has been and always will be. Because of the evil in this world we have to love God because we want too not because God controls us and forces us to. What kind of fellowship would that be? I love God because he sent his son as the ultimate sacrifice to save us by his grace. It's a free gift all you have to do is take it but you have to want it. I am just a sinner saved by grace.
If you believe the response to your statement of 9-10-12@ 11:48 p. m. was telling you to shut up, and sit down you are going all paranoidy my friend. The closest anyone comes to that is to suggest you keep it out of government, and science, it is unsupportable, and unconstitutional in those disciplines.
We have said all along, over, and over believe what you will, say what you will just don't force your beliefs on the public, not in public schools, not in public government. You, and your kind are not the public as a whole so keep what is private in the private domain, such as private schools. Now just what part of that is it that you can not get through your noggin? Good grief!
Smart Dog, thanks for answering Cheetah's quite ambiguous question with a very well constructed and thought out answer. I am confident you hit the nail on the head!
Did you somehow think my long winded dissertation was stating a disbelief in relativity. I am quite familiar with most all of Einstein's works and am firmly planted in a reality that supports relativity.
I don't feel the need to worship anything. Well, I do admire my wife and children quite a bit. Why is it you think everyone needs, or choses to, worship something? I will admit a significant fondness for nature as well. Trees have always amazed me.
Thanks for the props. Mostly I spray out words as they come and it's a wonder it makes any sense. One thing I can guarantee, it's original spray that is the culmination of diverse education and experience combined with a huge amount of soul searching, analysis, and just plain old observation of my fellow humans.
May I add my kudos SD? :)
Kinda quiet around here, guess it's time for wound lickin'. ;)
I would never imply ND that you had wounds to lick from circumstances here. :)
Hey News how about givin' me a little help with zombies. see my relig. blog post of a bit ago. :)
No one asked - but I think the best portrayal of how the demonic works in this realm would be the books "This Present Darkness" and its sequel "Piercing the Darkness" by Frank Paretti. Both very well written novels that seem to do a great job showing how it might all fit together. That's just my two-cents worth.
Nana: "In our massive ignorance and pathetic greed, we have done irreparable damage under the guise of science and progress as well as under religious domination. As Jerry Mander noted a quarter of a century ago, in the abscence of the sacred, all life loses."
There is no comparison, NONE, for "irreparable damage done by science and religion". Science has helped lead us much farther away from the misery of having to hunt our daily food and dying in our early 20's from an abscessed tooth or other disease we have learned how to eliminate. Science has not yet been able to come up with something to correct the hallucination that there is supernatural forces at work, unfortunately, because that is the underlying ignorance that has brought us religion, the real origin of irreparable damage.... jrpo (just a rational person's opinion)
Question to MyOp from OKR: "For clarities sake, I mean the voice of God actually delivering a message heard clearly by the recipient, but not heard by others."
In other words, MoOp, are you certifiably crazy? :-)
News: "Demons, despite their evil, are creatures I find fascinating."
Demons News, really? Where is your "observable, measurable, testable, verifiable, repeatable, factual, physical evidence" to support such nonsense?
I have the box set of all Robert Johnson's work News. We have so much music (old school CDs, and still some tapes LOL), that I forget what I have sometimes. I got it out thanks for the reminder.
What about demons? Well we live in a fallen world. Why is there evil in the world? Because of the fall of Adam and his sin. What will the world be like without evil? Some will never know.
The authority to exorcise demons is not given by the church. It is given to Christians who are redeemed by the blood of Jesus. He has all authority and as Christians we can call on that authority. Demons may just be playing the part to be silent after an exorcism to make people think the Catholic church has all authority. While they overlook the fact that the Catholic church is replete with heresies, worshipping Mary, unbiblical teachings, superstitions and the claim that they are the one true church. The demonic realm is brilliant to make people believe that.
"Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?' 23 "And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.'" (Matt. 7:22-23 ).
I highly recommend the books by Peretti.
The Bible says that Lucifer and one-third of the angels were kicked out of heaven. Could these the be demons referred to in modern times?
"where do you suppose a demon acquires the things that distinguish between a demon and just bad acid-reflux?"
SC, NA, you guys are tearing me up. Stop! I have no idea who possesses either of your souls, but I am reasonably sure that you are each in full possession of your faculties, though I do not know what ever possessed you to do this thing.
I think the two of you together may have proven two things, that being possessed sometimes has nothing to do with a smelly substance profusely spewing out of mouths, and that in this instance it definitely has a bovine origin. ;)
Here is a link that likely needs to be explored by NA, and SC, er...if you have the spirit to do so. ;)
In case I didn't make myself clear NA, and SC, I have thoroughly enjoyed your spirited discussion.
It amazes me that someone that denies God is an expert on demons. They wouldn't know Jesus if he shook their hand so how would they know what a demon is? Then they say Baptist preachers can't read or write. Really! Is that taught in the Catholic church or is that only for ex-Catholics? Are you sure Joe Biden is not a poster on here?
na - How many Baptist Preachers - or non-catholic preachers for that matter - do you know on even a friendship basis? Also - do you have any verifiable scientific evidence that most of them "can barely read and write"? ... Or is that an opinion?
When Jesus of Nazareth cast out demons he didn't go into some big prayer (even in Latin) or big exorcism ritual ... He simply said "Get out!" And the demons obeyed.
No formula - just faith.
"Thus, even though the term Tao is used of Christ in the Chinese translation of John's Gospel, we should not infer that Taoism and Christianity are really about the same thing. They are not. Christianity proclaims a personal Creator who is morally outraged by man's sinfulness and will one day judge the world in righteousness (Rom. 1:18--2:6). Taoism proclaims an impersonal creative principle which makes no moral distinction between right and wrong and which judges no one." (From Taoism and Christianity by Michael Greghorn, www.probe.org/content/view/892/0/)
My prior post was a definition of Tao from a Christian website. It defines Tao in a few sentences, and misses the point. My point is that most religions, including Christianity, give short shrift to other paths to enlightenment. Below is a more detailed, and standard description of Taoism. Note the difference. Also note that the passage below is not my words. Rather they are a universal description from a religious tolerance web site.
Time is cyclical, not linear as in Western thinking.
Taoists strongly promote health and vitality.
Five main organs and orifices of the body correspond to the five parts of the sky: water, fire, wood, metal and earth.
Each person must nurture the Ch'i (air, breath) that has been given to them.
Development of virtue is one's chief task. The Three Jewels to be sought are compassion, moderation and humility.
Taoists follow the art of "wu wei," which is to let nature take its course. For example, one should allow a river to flow towards the sea unimpeded; do not erect a dam which would interfere with its natural flow.
One should plan in advance and consider carefully each action before making it.
A Taoist is kind to other individuals, in part because such an action tends to be reciprocated.
Taoists believe that "people are compassionate by nature...left to their own devices [they] will show this compassion without expecting a reward."
Back to something more appropriate to this Christian/anti-Christian blog: Newly discovered early Christian text says Jesus was married. Good thing the Catholic hierarchy didn't get to it first, or it would have been rat holed.
One or two more of these things, and the priesthood will have to give up celibacy. Most would then embrace matrimonial relationships, and such, though some would run to other dark corners like the Boy Scouts, and youth camps. ;)
Back to Taoism for a moment. It seems to me that much of it can be embraced by agnostics, and beyond. It might be handy for those who are more comfortable with a formalized belief system, but are not comfortable with a deity. It speaks with wisdom, and depth, something that may appeal to non-deists, who thirst for wisdom, but can not believe that wisdom is a proprietary thing as professed by some religious folk.
News I have no way of knowing even whether you are human, or demon, or even something much worse. I am very suspicious concerning you. I would bet that I am not the first of those who read, and comment here to suspect that you may be an emissary of, if not the Devil himself.
It is very hard to type with a finger from each hand crossing in defence, but I always do anymore when we are exchanging comments. ;)
News I think you are losing it. Next thing you will be off to the outback searching for a living Demon Duck of Doom. Aussie Wife get an exorcist over there pronto. ;)
By the way, just how much did you have to do with that firenado? You aren't planning any trips stateside soon are you?
na - It's all just words - whether Aramaic or Latin ... The scriptures tell that Jesus didn't go through some ritual of any sort - just said "leave" and the demon(s) left. In one instance they ran into a herd of hogs and ran off a cliff. And, by the way, if I was demon possessed I probably wouldn't want anyone casting the demon(s) out - but if someone I knew was possessed I would rather have a born again Spirit filled man (or woman) of God who understands how to harness Spiritual power through faith leading the charge than a Jesuit priest - but in extreme instances I would probably call on faith-filled folks of all "christian" quarters to help out.
Slater businessman Terry Jordan and town city officials have been victims of a viral vicious internet and twitter attack this week based on a hoax. Facebook and chat sites are alive with false information, and Jordan received death threats.
This highlights the importance of understanding cyber bullying - which apparently isn't confined to school students. Reminder: free program on cyber bullying 6:30 p.m. Sept. 25 at Marshall High School with program provided by the mother of Megan Meier who became suicidal after cyber bullying. We could all learn more.
Perhaps pit bulls are subject to demonic possession and we can chalk this up to supernatural forces as well.
As Terry is possessed by a deeply held belief that Jesus is his Lord and Savior, I think he would be first in line if you asked for volunteers to battle demons.
So, demons.........pit bulls........could this be a test of faith?
I mean if we are going to go all out on the supernatural mythology, we might as well draw some improper parallels to current events as well, eh?
SD - Seems to me this is no laughing matter. I know TJ and consider him a friend - even though I don;t see him all that often anymore - and he - of all people - does not deserve this.
SD ROTFLMAO. Speaking of rolling, you are certainly on a roll.
(pitbulls, demons, etc.)
Recent evidence may indicate that Jesus had a wife, but it appears that the Catholic church exorcised her from any previous epistles.
No way to ever know, but the man was in his 30s when he got the call.
Lighten up gb. SD was only bringing a posted interruption of the current thread into the fold, quite cleverly I must say. Irreverancy is a form of humor best exemplified by Mark Twain, though SD's effort certainly doesn't sully the craft.
I am sure that he harbors no ill feelings for unfortunate Terry.
It maybe that those on the right are those less sympathetic to him because of his intrusion into personal freedom. After all they are the prime believers that a big bad dog, and a big bad gun are their God given right to manifest their particular form of paranoia. ;)
Good point InToo regarding the "was Jesus married" story. It is observant of you to note that from his shining moment portending his charisma, and brilliance at prepubscent age twelve, until he was around thirty we know nothing. So you raised the question was he indulging in male-female relationships common to men?
I can not recall any biblical passages stating, nor even insinuating that Jesus was an eunuch.
Now it maybe that there is something in the Very Good Book, that says God kept a tight leash on teen age, and beyond Jesus, helicopter parenting in its ultimate form so to speak. Maybe he yelled at Jesus a lot saying don't touch yourself like that, threatening to make hair grow in the palm of his hand. He may have issued dire warnings to Jesus daily as the maturing young man's explorations turned toward comely young women. With a charismatic personality like Jesus had they must have been flocking around him constantly, begging to do what ever he desired.
In fact the only way I can see in which that would not have been the case is if Jesus was gay. Those who hold tightly to the notion that Jesus was an asexual being, may simply be covering up an in their eyes, darker life style. After all according to the reporters of alleged witnesses he did spend his latter years lollygagging around the country with a dozen men.
One may also have cause to be curious why those in the infrastructure of what they claim to be the one true church, have hidden so much history, as well as themselves, and have notoriously practiced the purported allegations against Sodom. Could it be that they were emulating their leader in every way possible?
We may never know the true story. All things are possible with Jesus; right?
ah yes the chickenistas...hadn't heard about them in a while...guess you have been too busy with demons....speaking of fowl and demons...do you plan to do a search for a living demon duck of doom?
Wow, don't stop by for 5 days and missed out on lots of, well, mostly crazy stuff. Demons, possessions, like some have insinuated, I can't help but believe News may need to see a doctor to exorcise his tongue from his cheek :-)
Of course News has proven he can go on and on with a subject he really doesn't believe in, so as mentioned by others as well, his current mission of espousing the reality of demons doesn't quite fit his mantra of "verifiable, repeatable, ..". On a similar note, perhaps he is really possessed, but as someone else noted, the possession has a slight smell of bovine :-)
And per the Tao post, it apparently is just another way to put a word on a way to describe a philosophy of life, some way to try and add definition to the way someone wants to try to live their life. The only problem is, there is no "one way" to live your life, at least to someone else's desire to categorize it. There is no god, no evil spirits, no angels, and certainly no demons, and the sooner everyone understands that the better chance we all have to live a really good and moral life. In other words, not much chance. No props required. On second thought, that sounds a little like Tao. I just don't like being boxed in by a single word. Once you do that, the next thing you start doing is a ritual, and before long, you might start believing you were sent here by some god, and before long you start asking others to drink the Kool-Aid.
I don't know what has got into me; perhaps I'm possessed. I knew I should have drank one less beer last night :-)
SC if that last bit was original stuff, and I have no reason to doubt that considering your proven creative ability, it is the best I have seen around here for a while. Funny, funny, funny!
It wasn't my point to chastise you for the lack of accreditation Cheetah. No harm in sharing apocryphal stories, especially good ones. I bet you wish you had created it though. I wish I had. :)
The Gospel of Jesus' Wife? When sensationalism masquerades as scholarship
Some will jump on any news that supports their belief. Then they try to make you think they only believe verified,testable evidence. Sometimes facts really don't matter, then sometimes they do. We just never know when.
A SHORT VISUAL HISTORY OF THE CREEPY OBAMA CULT
News ya mean it isn't even a broad reference to Chickenistas? Say it ain't so. ;)
BTW I thought your response to SC was the epitome of literary dead pan humor. Ya both done good. :)
Most of all, me too. You guys are hilarious. :)
Smok'n: "But absolute certainty about nothing is still absolute certainty about something."
That is a bogus, or at least irrelevant, argument SC. I am confident there are no spirits or gods. How is that certain about something.. I guess certainty in my belief. It doesn't make something out of nothing, as it appears you insinuate.
I'd like for theists (and anyone who believes in spirits) to understand that I feel incapable of "just believing" in a god. It is in my DNA perhaps, and something I consider logical thinking. It goes a little beyond logical thinking in that I know that theists are very capable in logical thinking, and perhaps for the same reason I am incapable of believing in the supernatural, they are incapable of not believing in the supernatural. The flip side of SC's comment is that theists believe in something that is "not there", at least not where they can see it or come up with the slightest proof that a god does exist. Yet, theists believe in what they cannot see, it is a feeling that cannot be rationalized, yet is exists (the feeling, not the god). However, that being said, I have no problem with anyone who believes in spirits or gods, as long as they don't try and push it into our schools and government. Science is not teaching atheism. Evolution does not require one to be an atheist. However, there are many extreme theists who teach that the laws of science are suspended by their god. That is where we part.
Maybe we should just look at it as club dues? Actually I am uncomfortable with any thing exclusionary. No, this is not the Augusta National Golf Club, but the principle is the same.
Thus I have suggested that if technically possible these blogs remain open forums, despite the changes. As I can afford it, I pledge to still cough up the nine bucks a month.
SC, I am using the word argument as in point/counter point, not with any form of animosity. My arguments are based on rationality.
OkR, what are you talking about $9 per month? Did I miss something?
I agree that churches / pastors shouldn't get involved in PUBLICLY promoting one candidate, issue, etc. over another. But that is not the same as a minister of any sort sitting down and expressing his personal thoughts to friends, etc.
One more thing - I wish someone would give me a working definition of "organized religion" that can be used to cover the term whenever it shows up in this forum.
This might help ...
The word "religion" was derived from a Latin word that describes a "return to bondage." Religion is a lifestyle that is based on repetitive formulas, not necessarily a relationship with Christ. That relationship should be our goal as believers.
Boy that cleared that up.
Yes SC, I do recall. As to your other points; yes, yes, and yes. :)
Again - use of the english language sometimes leaves us at a loss for knowing what a word might mean ot its origins ... Sad.
I'm not sure "organizational" or "organized" or even "denominational" would change what I think you're talking about. Anytime you get a group of folks together - a few or thousands - you will have disagreements and power plays and authoritarian figures and lemmings or sheep who follow the so-called leaders. That makes for a bad representation of what Christianity is all about. It's about relationship with Christ and about loving others as you love yourself. I think Brother Love had it right when he said the Lord gave us two good hands - one to reach out to him and one to reach out to our brothers (mankind).
In its purest form - organized or organizational "religion" has done this. In the form we see today - it's pretty much all corporate religiosity complete with ladders to climb, CEOs, and the workers who keep the ball rolling. That said - I think if you look around you might find some very humble men and women of God trying to do WHAT THE BIBLE - NOT RELIGION says we are to do.
Of course - this is all just my opinion and I absolutely do not expect anyone to jump on board what may appear to be a runaway train.
One more thing - religion is bondage, no matter how you lok at it.
In my opinion, spirituality is a good thing.
Religion can be a good thing, if you keep it from being organized. By this I mean, having a heirarchy of people telling others how to think and behave. Churches have boards on a local and national level. These people are all about control.
All you really need is a person to help you interpret problems that you may not be able to ferret out for yourself. If the Catholic Church had not systematically rewritten and reorganized the Bible to suit their own needs, it might be intelligible.
Whether you believe in Jesus or not doesn't matter in this one context. In cases of religion, the fewer involved, the better. As soon as there is structure and organization, the purity goes away.
You never see the Amish not minding thier own business.
Unless they are shunning someone, and I hear that can be brutal.
Not belaboring your point, but I don't think a chromosome count would be much of a hindrance to a divine creator. He can pretty much make any physics laws or genetic law he so desires...especially if it is his offspring.
On a planet orbiting any other sun, he would be able to duplicate that feat.
I understand where you are coming from, but if someone believes in immaculate conception, then it would follow that the chromosome thingy is no problem at all.
So, while I appreciate your scientific appraisal, it would not even be a factor to a true believer; as holds true for Noah, Moses and all the other Biblical 'big guys'.
Before the $9/month fee kicks in and I can no longer post my comments on this blog, I'd like to invite those of you who believe in the importance of science and critical thinking to visit richarddawkins.net. Some of you already know about this site, but for those that don't, you will find some very thought provoking current articles with many thoughtful blogger comment by a wide variety of individuals around the world. It is free to register and comment all you want. Besides the commentary from some really great minds, lots of pure science is referenced including current science news.
Does anyone know of any other religion forums (open to both sides) that they would recommend for the rest of us to check out?
Science works because its methodology requires verifiable and repeatable experimentation, and is open to honest criticism or challenge. We see real world achievements from science. Religion works because its methodology requires believing there is a higher power because of some type of intuition. To believe there is a higher power is not in itself a bad thing, and quite understandable based on human behavior and history. However, many differing religions have risen from that intuition that there is a supernatural reason for our existence, and they all diverge from each other from that point because they have evolved from the writings of humans claiming to know and experience things that no human could possibly know or experiences that could have anything to do with reality. The real issue with all religions is that they have been built on top of a house of cards, based solely on intuition.
Jeez guys I may have to quit posting my free thoughts here. I just found out that Oklahoma has a blasphemy law. It is a misdemeanor, and has been on the books since 1909. I may have an out as apparently if the speech is a part of a serious discussion (reasonable doubt standard), and I can prove that they will let me off the hook. I may have to subpoena all of you to prove my case. Well, maybe not all of you. I don't think every thing posted here is serious. ;)
Also I often break the Sabbath, and that is also a misdemeanor.
I think others may indeed have the stones - but it's repulsive to me to keep throwing "pearls before swine" ... I feel no compulsion to have the last word - because I know what I believe. Jesus and Paul both indicated that there are those who just have to be left - those who - if not interested in what you have to say - you are supposed to "shake the dust off your feet" and get on down the road. I am sure you have a great many people you CAN touch with your beliefs - and I am sure you are intelligent and articulate enough to do just that. Folks like news just want to keep you focused on them long enough to get you off task. They are arrogant and LOVE the attention.
I say just leave them to their own devices and minister your form of faith to others with whom you may have a better outcome.
I'm with you buddy.
"Animals are conscious and should be treated as such"
Use the link below to read the full article. I'm sure the extremely religious will use their good book to argue they are beasts of burden to be used (and slaughtered) the way the Lord intended. Here is a link to the article:
"Humans -- who enslave, castrate, experiment on and fillet other animals -- have had an understandable penchant for pretending animals do not feel pain. A sharp distinction between humans and "animals" is essential if we are to bend them to our will, make them work for us, wear them, eat them -- without any disquieting tinges of guilt or regret. It is unseemly of us, who often behave so unfeelingly toward other animals, to contend that only humans can suffer. The behavior of other animals renders such pretensions specious. They are just too much like us.
~ Carl Sagan (born: 1934-11-09 died: 1996-12-20 at age: 62)
People must have renounced, it seems to me, all natural intelligence to dare to advance that animals are but animated machines... It appears to me, besides, that [such people] can never have observed with attention the character of animals, not to have distinguished among them the different voices of need, of suffering, of joy, of pain, of love, of anger and of all their affections. It would be very strange that they should express so well what they could not feel.
~ Voltaire (born: 1694-11-21 died: 1778-05-30 at age: 83) [François Marie d'Arouet Voltaire] Traité sur la tolerance
I guess we lighten up a little when it comes to dogs. Still it makes me laugh when a person expresses disgust at dog eaters between bites of his steak.
Not being an omniscient being, I cannot answer paradoxical questions. I am also not very good at dealing with infinity.
I do realize my many limitations.
Once again, if there is a God, he could care less about chromosomes, and until they find Jesus' body, we will never know how many chromosomes he had.
IToo: "I do realize my many limitations"
You certainly have a leg up on most of us :-)
I know News. Your point?
Hey I pig out on that stuff too. Nothing like a good dog on a bun.
However I have cut way back on meat, more of a treat than what I eat. I sheepishly admit that I feel a bit of guilt when I eat our brethren that are further down the food chain. However I am not cowed by aggressive vegans.
If more people ate what hogs do they wouldn't be so porcine. ;)
Bohdi as you enjoy the company of some animals more so than you enjoy the company of most humans, have you considered eating humans?
Maybe a new campaign should be started, especially considering that we are about to produce more humans than we can feed. How about, Eat humans, it's the natural thing to do! Maybe instead, Too many arrivals via the stork, time to start eating long pork! Or perhaps, Too many folks on the scene, time to start eating soylent green.
Perhaps a slightly different advertising slant covering our massive obesity problem at the same time as over population. Time To Chew The Fat! ;)
At the rate we are over-producing our species, and the increasing momentum of climate change the whole world may become one huge Donner's Pass. No advertising campaign needed. ;)
ROTFLMAO News. We may all regress when that happens News. One thing for sure neither you, nor I will lose our ability to keep our verbal motors running. :)
COPS TO ANSWER IN COURT FOR 'STONING' OF CHRISTIANS
This is happening in America folks and we are letting it happen under the guise of religious freedom. Seems religious freedom only applies to all religions 'EXCEPT' christianity. This is also infringing on other freedoms.
And your Christian brethren did nothing to provoke the Muslims r? They crashed an Arab Festival in Dearborne MI, carrying a pigs head on a pole, and hurling insults. They stated God was not Allah. What the hell did they think was going to happen? Did they think flowers would be thrown at them? I got all that from the sorry Christian fascist site that you linked. If I wanted to bother searching for an objective site it would probably reveal an even more absurd action by the Faux Christians. Good Grief. Irrationality run amok masquerading as Christian persecution.
It is called assumption of risk News, and r. If you yell fire in a theatre you may get trampled. You don't sue the ushers for your injuries. Double good grief.
Think provocation of riot.
Be leery of the sources for this story News. I ran a google search, and checked the first forty four entries. Every one was a far right source, running from Alex Jones to the aptly named rightside news. Don't you find it curious that NO major news sources have this story, not even Fox?
As to your Christians got stoned story.
Once again you have provided a link to a site that is most questionable.
First of all I don't believe it's true but if it is, how does it feel to be judged soley based on your preferred faith?
Is the Quran Hate Propaganda?
All religious doctrine is basically the same. Believe what we believe or meet a horrible fate. What's your point?
rr3, I agree that the Muslim religion is the most violent religion today. Most Muslims do not interpret their holy book to condone violence, but nor does most of the other major religions. However, all religions are born out of ignorance (there is no supernatural daddy in the sky) and are subject to each individual's interpretation of what their holy book tells them to live their life. Christians have gone through long cycles of murder and violence in their not too distant past, and still provoke in the name of their religion.
I enjoyed the video as well Nana. This bishop (?) seems more deist than theist. He's on the verge of becoming secular (rational). He'll probably be excommunicated soon.
Bohdi I practice my religion in public. It is secular humanism. The only way you can tell a secular humanist is by good works, and that is sometimes difficult to practice in private. ;)
I believe Bohdi that most of us would eat long pig in desperate circumstances.
Shake a little salt on leg of man,
fry it all crispy in a big old pan.
Pop the top on an ice cold beer,
crunch on down on deep fried ear.
Did anyone notice?
"Since the terror attack that should have been the one to end all others, 9/11, there have been 19,680 deadly attacks, with over 260,000 deaths, all in the name of Islam. This is not a few people "that have hijacked a religion." This is the religion. This is Islam. It's time to take notice."
...and do what exactly? How many people have died since 2001 because of our illegal military activity? Do you think a mother in Iraq would be correct in calling us terrorists?
OKR - that's a little over the top - even for me.
Kinda reminds me of the Donner Pass fiasco. But then again - I guess they WERE hungry.
Hey gb! Yeh sometimes I can't contain my warped sense of humor, and such as that just pops out. Occasionally I even shock myself, then murmur to myself, "you are one sick old geezer". LOL
OKR - I guess the world could use a few more old geezers - sick or not.
I guess that settles it. There is no such thing as 'evil'. It is all a matter of perception.
Does that mean that there is no such thing as 'truth'?
Does that mean there is no such thing as 'immorality'?
It is not so unless you 'perceive' that it is so. Interesting!
Bohdi pick a different century, and Christians would be the big number murderers. It is, as you pointed out all a matter of perspective. I am certain that the folks in Iraq looking around at the physical devastation, and looking back on the hundreds of thousands dead would consider most of them victims of terrorism. Yes, and rr3 if born, and living over there with his mind set, and persona would be yelling the same things about Christianity that he yells now about Islam.
It's all the same, and always has been.
I do differ from you a bit Bohdi regarding the us, or them philosophy. In theory I prefer all for one, one for all= all for all. ;)
I am pragmatic enough to know that both philosophies are in play as things ebb, and flow.
So are you saying that your definition of good or evil is only based on your opinion?
There is no "truth," as what is true is relative and subjective. There is only knowledge, or the lack of knowledge.
No religion can claim to add anything to mankind other than ideological dogma and emotional appeal, which is not truth, or knowledge.
Regarding morality, or immorality, they are even more subjective and relative to the social norms of a given group. One mans morality is anothers immorality. One mans holy war is anothers evil.
Knowledge, and the search for further understanding of our selves, our world, and our universe is, and always should be, the ultimate goal for mankind.
This can only be achieved through application of the scientific method of discovery combined with a healthy dose of philosophical logic, which makes a great BS detector.
Religion is brainwashing for the masses created as a tool for the Alpha (king, dictator, Moses, general, boss, wizzard, Pope, or whoever thinks they should be in charge of everyone else) to introduce the concept of a fate worse than death (eternal damnation to hell) for breaking the rules that the Alpha wishes to impose.
It is the goal of any psychopath who wishes to be the leader to get the followers to do what he wants willingly. Religion is a great tool for that. Convince them of the "divine right of kings" or that you are "God's spokesman on earth" and you are golden in a society full of believers in whatever form of mythology you are promoting.
Here's a newsflash for the Christians, the Muslims think they are just as right about their dogma as you do. So who's really got the knowledge and who's just succumbing to BS?
I say neither, but that's just me.
With that knowledge that you posted would you say that it is impossible to have an absolute moral truth?
Science has provided us the knowledge that we are "wired" to be altruistic.
If it is completely impossible to have an absolute moral truth, then anything we think is immoral would have some exception where it would be moral, right?
Is it always wrong to torture babies merely for your personal pleasure? If that is not always immoral then please give an example when it is moral to do so.
Would you say Bohdi that you tend toward the sociopathic? As I read more of you here you kinda raise the hairs on the back of my neck. I can certainly see where certain aspects of Hume help you with self confirmation that you are O. K. You are a little different breed of cat than has posted around here before. ;)
Good question r, I look forward to Bohdi's answer.
You are making a logic error when making the statement: "If it is completely impossible to have an absolute moral truth, then anything we think is immoral would have some exception where it would be moral, right?"
That is the equivalent of saying something like: "Since you can not prove that God does not exist, therefore he does."
The lack of an absolute moral truth does not automatically imply immorality is automatically moral. Morality, being subjective, is in the eye of the beholder, so yes, in some sort of twisted universe or society, baby strangling may be considered moral.
In fact, we can find an example of that right here in our own frame of reference.
Those who seek to purge the enemy from existence see it as their moral duty to their society (or clan, or tribe, or religion, etc) to commit genocide.
To those who are being purged, it is immoral, to outside observers it appears immoral, yet to the crusader doing the purging, it is his divine right and therefore moral to purge the infidels.
See the difference? Morality is in the eye of the beholder.
You are some what unusual Bohdi. Good answer to rr3, not that it matters to you what others think. ;)
Bohdi you said, "cause ULTIMATLEY we are each responsible for every single thing in our own lives"
I don't think you got that quite right. Maybe, we are each responsible for every single thing WE CAUSE in our own lives.
For instance I don't believe that all the people who died at Chernobyl were responsible for their own deaths. I believe you err in not giving consideration to intervening actions, and events that individually we obviously do not control, and thus for which, we are not responsible.
You also said; "But I will never be able to understand what it is like to be another human being...no one can, so I judge others exactly as I would wish to be judged."
And that my friend is why so many sages counsel us to not be about the business of judging. Why your own mentor Hume said free the mind of prejudice. As in your point, how would one know that he had freed his mind of prejudice, thus better to not judge, than judge errantly.
"Those people CHOSE to live where they did, thus making them repsonsible for thier own fate" That is a ridiculous stretch Bohdi. By your way of thinking the people who lived in Hiroshima, chose to live there, and thus are responsible for their own fate of becoming crispy critters. What an illogical crock of it. You are better than that. ;)
BohdiLi, you have all the makings of a right wing, tea party, Republican. I hope I am reading you wrong, but it sounds like you have no compassion for your fellow man, and do not believe in coming to their aid for any reason. Either that or you are just espousing fatalism. You are interjecting the influence of cause and effect, and that it is in every individual's capability to change that in every situation, which is quite ridiculous. Let's say your daughter "as a normal, able bodied healthy adult" (as you specified in an earlier post) is walking down the street and an older gentleman has a heart attack and veers over the sidewalk and hits her. I know you are not saying that her fellow man walking down the street should stand by and not administer lifesaving CPR because it was her own decision to walk down that street at that time, or are you?
So BL would you say that there is such a thing as an absolute moral truth?
Could there also be absolute truth?
When you have no truth or absolutes then anything goes. It is only dependent on your personal opinion. So why do we have laws? Why is it against the law to murder? If I feel that it is ok shouldn't I be free to murder? Let's see we have done that with abortion haven't we? Jesus died because he was absolutely moral. I guess anything goes as long at it is not biblical.
If we had no homosexuality would we have aids? Those that deny God like their sin and they don't want the Christian to shine a light on it.
rr3: "If we had no homosexuality would we have aids?" Yes rr3 we would. It may be that if we had no bestiality, followed by connubial coupling we would not have HIV, but there is no certainty to that.
Monkey business in this case r. (Just to give you a search hint rr3, in your long delayed effort to eradicate personal ignorance.) :)
Einstein's letter on God written one year before he died is going on auction. In it he writes:
"the word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."
"For me, the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions."
It doesn't really require an Einstein to come to the conclusion there is no sky daddy, but it does require at least a little ignorance to "just believe" there is one. That's me, not Einstein :-)
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
"The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window." - Stephen King
""Faith" means not wanting to know what is true." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I thought this a good place to combine the wisdom of Nietzsche and Stephen King.
Along with Mr. Roberts famous line....
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen Roberts
Good stuff SD. The postman rings thrice. You definitely are carrying the mail, and not a piece of junk delivered. ;)
I was going to include an nice atheistic quote from Abraham Lincoln, OKR, but I thought the Christians might explode.
I am self limiting my blasphemy out of consideration of others feelings.
Hell, I'll be on the road toward heaven in no time.
It seems to me Bohdi that you are a creature of self isolation stemming from some combination of nature, and nurture. It is my opinion that it has put blinders on you limiting your perspective. Social contracts are an aspect of nature. Such contracts are not confined to humans, but seem more complex within human kind, though it may be just our lack of understanding that makes it seem so.
There is an ever enlarging body of work that supports the hypothesis that altruism is hard wired within most of us which enhances our ability to survive as a species. I believe that you somehow may have missed out on that one, or that the connection to altruism within you is not as strong as it is in many others. I further think that also limits your perspective. Taking a cue from your man Hume, if you can't feel it you can't consider it. ;)
Bohdi I recently read a book entitled Sex on Six Legs", by Marlene Zuk. I think that it provides a lot of food for thought, and enjoyed it. I also think that you might enjoy it. At the following link is a New York Times review of the book. See whatcha think. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/books/review/sex-on-six-legs-by-marlene-zuk-bo...
Bohdi: "so what is limiting my perspective?"
That was a joke. We all have limited perspectives. You pointed out one of your own regarding music. :)
Bohdi: "Hardly. I am all for legalizing same sex marriage. For legalizing narcotics. For legalizing prostitution. I am for keeping abortions legal, and i am all for taking religion as far away from politics as possible."
OK, you do have some redeeming qualities then, although quite eclectic!
Hell Bohdi I reckon with all your education 'n' book larnin' we ain't got squat in common. I'm just an ole country boy with thirty hours or so of college course credit of which I slept through for the most part. I cut my teeth on Bucky Bug comic books, and James Whitcomb Riley. I figure I have read a fair amount of flotsam, and jetsam since then, so I don't hold a candle to you.
Mighty impressive you are. ;)
Bodi: "well, thank the big fat buhhda that some of us are able to overcome the findings of science!"
Does this mean you are a follower of Buddhism and don't trust science?
I understand that. I reckon my search light that allows me to peer into the darkness won't go out, until they pry it from my cold dead hand. Better that than a gun, and more powerful as well in my unfortunately not always humble opinion. ;)
GUESS WHO STILL BELIEVES IN A FLAT EARTH...
You mean you are not racing to sign up for Joel & Victoria's 'A Night of Hope' fleecing of the flock?
Say it ain't so.
I am sure they will say a prayer for your pagan soul for a donation. Probably slip in a few words to the sky daddy for you while riding in their private jet, or maybe from the yacht, eh?
The latest in a long line of charlatans profiting from the human tendency toward agenticity.
I think I'll open up a Christian book store so I can reap my share of the holy one's rewards also.
Personally, rr3, I never saw the flat earth thing as religious in beginnings, never saw that in the bible or anyone saying it was. More likely it is an old wives tale from history because ancient mariners sailed off toward the horizon and never returned, therefore they must have gone over the edge.
However, the whole earth, according to James Ussher, is only 6000 years old. And dinosaurs and mankind existed at the same time, which is totally incorrect. That myth is current religious dogma, eh?
Of course it conflicts with the biblical statement that mankind is 1000 generations old. At the biblical 40 years per generation that means folks have been here for about 40,000 years. How is it that these two predictions are so far apart?
An interesting example of interspecies benevolence. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/08/lioness-befriends-baby-antelope_n_19486...
Hey r, I still think that we ought to consider a house swap. Here is something else to pique your interest. Oklahoma City is the third most religious city in our nation. First is Salt Lake City, I think too many Mormons for your taste, second is Birmingham AL, way too many welfare folks for you, and then there is Oklahoma City which is chock full of Southern Baptists.
I am sure it doesn't matter to you that it is also has more than about any other city, unwed teen mothers, divorces, smokers, obesity, untreated mental illness, illiteracy, hardly any public transportation, more women in prison than any other state, a horrible education system, a plethora of school drop outs, and a host of other things some folks would consider to be problems.
In your mind I would imagine that is outweighed by a vast majority of Republicans who run every aspect of government, (city, and state). One other thing that you will love is that though blacks, and women are protected by anti-discrimination, and hate crime laws you can beat the hell out of those horrible homosexuals without suffering the cosequences of hate crime charges. Doesn't that all sound peachy to you?
To top it all off we have Representative Sally Kern, who is a very public voice for your private thoughts. Put her in your search engine if you don't know who she is. You would absolutely love her. She lives about five minutes from our place, and would almost be a neighbor to you. Plus you get even more, Representative Ralph Shortey the author of a bill outlawing the use of fetuses in food products!
I guess you know that due to all those amenities that are so attractive to the very conservative, I will be expecting a premium if we decide to swap homes. Get back to me on this one. ;)
Sorry r, here is the link that shows OKC is the third most religious city in America. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/18/most-and-least-religious-cities_n_15226...
"Believe it or not, I actually attended a Seminary College for over a year...with the iintent of becomoing ordained...not because I am was a believer, but because I wanted to have a legitimate way to bilk people of their money....
then I realized that THAT is crossing a line...messing with peoples beliefs for profit....just sickening.."-Bohdi
"I never met a beer I didn't like" - I think Will Rogers said that :-)
Bohdi: "I believe ALL living things have souls and intelligence. The main difference being, I believe, is that their systems are much more geared towards pragmatism."
Can you clarify what you think the "soul" is that all living things have?
If you are saying their systems are geared toward pragmatism based on evolutionary "survival of the fittest" I would understand. Certainly wild animals have very little time for leisure, and most of their time is spent under stress of finding food, shelter, and not being eaten. That would make one quite "pragmatic" I suppose :-)
There is also a lot of Evolutionary study integrating both survival of the fittest with the value of cooperation that give further insight into our altruistic nature. It appears that reputation of cooperation may be a key factor in our common morals (or lack of).
As our lives become easier, and survival becomes more of an assumption than a daily concern, it appears to me that folks have more time to sit around and criticize each other, or more likely, judge each other.
We now live in a society where many think they have the right to tell everyone else how they should be living, or what they should or should not be doing. (Yep, I'm looking at you, Christians....and Muslims for that matter.)
"And if you won't do what I tell you I'll get a politician elected who will pass laws to force you to fall in line, dammit" seems to be the refrain from the right.
Perhaps if all the Super-Christians were busy hunting and gathering daily sustenance, and fighting off the vermin and predators, they would have much less time to spend worrying about what the big dude who supposedly created this mess was thinking.
Wait, then they would probably just sit around and pray for food while starving to death like the Jamestown colony.
As God gave us winter, which in primitive times was a definite test of your ability to survive, I reckon it really is just a big old game to him, eh? Except praying won't feed you, but planting a big dang garden and working your butt off will. So, what is it we are supposed to be doing to honor him again, Christians?
sd you mentioned ussher and the bible. You refuted ussher's statement so I guess you believe the bible to be true?
Nope, but it is interesting reading in light of the fact that most religous folks usually get what it actually says wrong.
There are many good parables in there, which would be good words to live by whether there is a Supreme Being or not.
However, in my view the Bible becomes a burden when groups of like minded individuals start using it to justify things like genocide, slavery, and discrimination as well as a whole host of social mores justified by obscure references taken out of context.
So what do you use the bible for? Just to demonize Christians or something else.
Bohdi I don't know the taste of urine, so I can't judge your comparison between that, and the taste of beer. You may be right, but I don't think I'll be having a glass of the yellow stuff any time soon. I hear that it is salty, and I would never put salt in beer.
Despite my disadvantage I am going to quarrel with your opinion of beer, and its image. Firstly you, in my opinion misjudge the taste of good beers. Guinness stout has a hearty, complex flavor, that if heated, could serve as a soup on a cold rainy day. Oh I know, you have likely tried it, and found it wanting. I offer the counter proposal that it is you that is wanting, not that fine beer.
You also disparaged the image of beer, scoffing that it is only suitable for girls, and pimply faced boys. Returning to my example Guinness, you have forgotten that the brave men of the Irish revolution, planned, plotted, and courageously carried out their acts of rebellion fortified by that noble brew. Suitable only for post pubscents, the very idea! 'Tis a manly beer as bold as the acts it fostered. ;)
Just an observation Bohdi. I think you are the closest thing to an across the board libertarian as has posted on these blogs in a long time. Thus I welcome your voice. I grow weary of hearing only fundamentalists of the right waving the libertarian banner when it suits their base agenda, then rejecting those principles when it does not.
By the way, where are you on a woman's right to determine what does, or does not grow within her body?
"it goes back to MY idea of responsibility....we are each responsible for our own actions....as long as a person is willing to face the consequences of those actions, and they aren't doing me or mine any harm, then who am I to interfere?"-Bohdi
Spoken like a true libertarian. :)
Another question if you don't mind, where are you on Ayn Rand?
That's funny! If there is no God, then the bible is not true, why would there be demons?
Otherswise the Wake Forest University sports teams would have no mascot?
Bohdi I have read some of Rand's stuff when I was young it seems to me that her appeal is to youth. I would like to believe that I have outgrown she, and selfishness as the reason she currently has little appeal to me. Honestly speaking it may just be that I find her work repulsive because she is an often misunderstood spring board toward right wing radicalism. They seem to be unerringly drawn to, and draw from the worst points of her work. I don't like much of anything that encourages that point of view so it may be that subjectively speaking it is an emotional turn off.
Bo: "kinda like the saying "if you are not liberal when you are young, you have no heart. If you are not conservative when you get older, you have no brain" lol
Similar to the saying/question I think has "some" truth to it: "if you are a Republican, you are either rich or stupid.. which are you?"
Isn't a Libertarian posting on any blog somehow irrational? Although I guess it is possible for a Libertarian to want social interaction, just not share in the cost of maintaining our society. To be fair, maybe he is someone who just leans strongly toward the Libertarian ideals of self-indulgence. Then again, maybe Bo is the alter ego of RR3 :-) Then again, I keep geting the image of Bocephus when Bo writes.. been around the world enough to learn a lot, but just too much redneck to understand it all. Of course I am kidding !
I am somewhat strange when it comes to politics apparently (ok.....stop laughing).
I am finding that the older I get the more liberal I get.
I reckon I adhere to the red-headed wisdom of Bonnie Raitt, "Life gets mighty precious when there's less of it to waste"
I am growing tired of the money grubbing, back stabbing, ladder climbing, pyramid scheme, "I got mine so to hell with the rest of you," caveat emptor culture that is life in modern America where everybody is smiling at you and shaking your hand while they reach for your wallet. Where is the benevolence of your religions hiding in that quagmire?
My personal opinion is that we are becoming a society full of psychopaths and con men with religion playing a significant role in the demise.
9000 year old earth? Physics is wrong? Climate science is wrong? Archaeology is wrong? Geology is wrong? Cosmology is wrong? Evolution is wrong? Really? But that dusty old book and a collection of old wives tales, mythology, and ideological interpretation is the absolute unquestionable truth?
Same scary Paul Broun video with closed captioning for the hearing impaired.
....and a nice reply from the Young Turks.
I couldn't help but chuckle at the "redneck" scream you made, but seriously enjoyed hearing you don't identify to anything close to a redneck. I often refer to myself as a redneck, but I don't consider myself anything near that either. Just a country boy at heart who grew up in the heartland with a super strong work ethic. But, country folk are really a long way from what we consider a real redneck, although maybe a little difficult for city fold to know the difference. It is interesting the various images one conjures up based on the content of their writing. What are we to imagine based on a whisky guzzling military guy who has served all over the world and would much rather pee on the person across the street in need than to offer help? Or am I misquoting you? I can't stop seeing Hank Williams Jr in my mind ... :-)
Bohdi you may claim to not be a Libertarian, yet you stated that you agree with eighty six percent of Libertarian positions. If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it is a duck, even if it has a few features that remind of a goose. ;)
I saw that story on the christian gay infiltrator also, News. Almost laughed myself silly while I pondered all the strange thought processes involved. Radical conservatives become more entertaining every day it seems.
At least it would be entertaining if the neo-cons didn't remind me so much of my reading about the rise of the Nazi party in Pre-WW2 Germany.
Exit polling following elections to determine why voters felt the way that they did. Then propoganda campaigns with direct mail advertising, radio advertising, short films at theaters, and poster campaigns crafted by psychologists designed to create fear and hate of specific groups of citizens (jews, gays, and liberals to be exact) to be blamed for all of the countries woes was the method schemed up by the Nazi's.
They were the founders of modern political campaign strategy involving mass psychology.
Worked like a charm for them. How many times have you seen a democracy elect a dictator for life?
I'm willing to bet a good portion of the Nugent and Limbaugh crowd is ready to elect Rick Santorum or maybe Wayne LaPierre dictator for life, or maybe Rush or Ted themselves.
You know, the Third Reich also said that God was on their side.
And you guys lighten up on Bohdi, that guy is hillarious in his own wacky kind of a good way. To me he is anyway. I enjoy thinkers of all stripes, it's just that the super-cons scare me so I like to argue with them.
I'll tell you one thing, I want guys like Bohdi on my side if it comes to revolution and I also want a country where that guy is free to be himself, as long as he doesn't wipe out all his neighbors so he can have what's in their refrigerators. :)
I share his view that if we let things degenerate enough we will have anarchy. And like him, I am honest enough to admit that I'll kill somebody to feed, and keep my kids healthy and safe, if necessary. I don't think that thinking is all that unusual in today's world.
Good posts as usual SD.
I am in solid agreement with you regarding Bohdi. I like his sense of humor, and that we can kid back, and forth with him without offense being taken. Is he full of it? Of course, but so am I. Whether he owns it, or not he does a good job of expressing libertarian principles, many of which I am in accord.
In some ways he reminds me of White Tornado who posted here years ago. We have not had a comparable libertarian voice since then.
I had an afterthought regarding my last post. Interestingly Bohdi, and WT each had a military background, and something of a warrior mentality.
If we only had a traditional conservative voice posting here our circle would be complete. Unfortunately those voices are currently in short supply, lost in the wilderness that is the nouveau right. Thus we are all handicapped by a skewed version that further polarizes conversation.
I am not looking for Thomas Freidman, nor George Will to post here, but it would be nice if someone did who at least read them.
Old adage: Never wrestle with a pig, you will get dirty, and the pig likes it. ;)
I am not certain that Bohdi's claim that he is fascist is well grounded, in fact it may be as mythical as Mussolini's claim that he (fascism) made the Italian trains run on time. ;)
What say you Bohdi? Defend yourself, and your fascism if both may be done in the same breath without absurd result.
The thought occurs to me that even those who pretended to believe in zombies knew those slow moving creatures were never a serious threat. Now that unconscionable obesity has overtaken the people of our nation they are a threat; for many of us can no longer move fast enough to even escape a zombie. ;)
If existence is defined as at least one person believing that an entity is real whether, or not there is physical evidence to support the belief, then there is nothing that is not under the sun.
Was a time, round midnight, when a few folks gathered on the blog;
howdy to you, evenin' back at ya, hello folks, ran the creeping conversational fog.
A sort of settling in with words, a murmuring end of day.
A slow disconnecting, in a sort of desultory way.
I have to admit, I needed to lookup the definition of fascism so I just didn't get the image of the Nazi's. After reading the definitions, it is easy to correlate to the current right wing part of the GOP:
"Fascists seek to unify their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people through national identity. The unity of the nation is to be based upon suprapersonal connections of ancestry and culture through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, physical training, and eugenics"
Maybe a simpler definition could be "patriotism gone awry"? The attitude of "my country right or wrong" is not a good one in my opinion. We are always struggling to vacillate toward what is right, but we must remain forever vigilant for digressions that take us further away from the type of country and people we want to be. I personally have never been "blindly" patriotic, nor should anyone. I would guess the Fascist would be quick to label that with some derogatory term like a Communist, something else that could not be farther from the truth. And of course, the lack of a proclaimed faith in god would seal the deal I'm sure.
I don't find the Nazi's to fit the fascist mold very well.
They were far more interested in total domination of German politics in order to take total control of the democratic German government.
They merely used national pride as a tool, along with several others, to gain power and therefore control over the country in order to further the racist, warmongering Nazi agenda. Hitler's goal was dictatorship and total domination of Europe, which he achieved, briefly.
I find the methods of modern Republicans to parallel the methods of the Nazi Party quite well. I do not see them as fascist.
What I see is the use of mass psychology to create enemies (gays, athiests, immigrants, anti-gun folk, ethnics, poor folk, and to a certain extent women) and then convince the weak minded that these groups are to blame for all the woes of the country.
Keep the masses scared that someone is going to take away things you value, or turn your children gay. Take advantage of blind faith to convince the religious that the other side is representing satan. Invent the boogie-man and then promise to defend the great "unwashed masses" from it. All bits of GOP methodology.
All are great political tools funded by billionaire capitalists with the desire to tilt the economic system in their favor. The real goal, eliminate labor laws, eliminate environmental regulation, eliminate usury laws and banking regulation with the goal in mind of the rich getting richer and the rest of us working to make that happen.
The end result will be a significant lowering of the standard of living for the middle and lower classes. The "job creator" class (and I use that term sarcastically) and the uber-rich will continue to have more while the rest of us pay for it.
Hell, it's already started if you just take the time to look at where the wealth has gone over the past 20 years. The top 2% have doubled their net worth, while the middle class has lost 11%.
IF Gordon Gecko was right and the economic system is a zero sum game, and since the top tier of the economic scale has done extremely well in spite of recessions, doesn't that mean that the ultra wealthy have prospered at the expense of others?
Sorry that this has nothing to do with religion, except for the Jewish persecution aspects of the Nazi's along with the Koch brothers worship of money, I reckon. Oh wait, there is the use of religion as a tool to influence elections which is another ugly characteristic of the GOP.
Smart Dog, I couldn't agree with you more. Well said! And religon is a key element to the GOP's ability to maintain political power.
News, your link to the 14 characteristics of a fascist government is scary indeed. I can certainly see a lot of those attributes in the right wing teabaggers.
You have a good point there, news.
My excuses are 1) I ain't that bright in the first place, 2) the caffine had not yet soaked in, and 3) I was in a hurry to bang out a comparison of the GOP and Nazi's before starting the workday and should have found a less stupid sounding segway to begin.
I feel like Howard Dean and Dan Quayle, since it's campaign season, it's the proper time for one to shoot themselves in the foot.
Yeah, in hindsight it is sort of an exact description of facism that I said wasn't facism.
Like I said, it is campaign season . . .
Perhaps I should put a little more rewrite time in on these rants. It sort of takes the fun out of it thought.
News, you've gone more than a little over the top: "the USA where a person can be imprisoned for life without a single court hearing or ever having the opportunity to challenge the charges against them in a court of law, or worse yet, where they can be executed by a US military death-squad with no charges or warrants ever levied against the person, its not unusual to see they appear to be delighted in being in a free country.."
If military executions occur as you say, they are extremely rare, and involve individuals captured on foreign soil mostly in countries where we are engaging militarily, most likely where they shouldn't be f'n around anyway. That is not happening to American citizens in anything but the most unique circumstances, where you paint a picture as if we should fear being pulled off the street and executed for jay walking. And implying our country is not a "free country" while yours is, is way over the top. Australia is one of our strongest allies, based on both sharing strong democratic values, and it doesn't warrant trying to compare one over the other because someone makes a ridiculous claim that one is much better than the other. Our constitution and bill of rights is the best statement on human rights in the world. That being said, we always need to remain diligent to insure all three branches remain independent so that our bill of rights never gets trampled on. Thankfully you have great leaders in charge who understand how close our ties are as free and democratic states and would never jeopardize that relationship with petty and somewhat childish comments akin to "my country is better than yours".
News is on the mark here.
It is not very far from where we are right now to our Commander in Chief branding opponents as terrorists or threats to national security and making them disappear.
That doesn't sound like the USA, does it? Yet, under current law and policy, it is possible and there are no legal protections to prevent it.
That should scare the hell out of everyone, but I am learning that if you cook folks very, very slowly, convincing them it is in their best interest, they don't realize they are being cooked.
RT those powers afforded the chief executive officer of our country are a blatant affront to our founding documents, and worse for they are a moral outrage thwarting the basic tenant "thou shall not murder".
Simply put our President now has the right to murder any citizen that he believes should die. No leader anywhere should have that right under any circumstance, and any nation that allows it is a nation of fools, and slaves.
You forgot to say "mate".
I would like to jump in here if I may ...
I think the "we can kill anyone we want and get away with it" attitude has been around for quite some time. 20 years ago a 13-14 year old boy and his mother were gunned down in cold blood in the mountains of northern Idaho and - aside from a couple of folks from the FBI and justice department being persuaded to take early retirement - no one had to pay for that crime (or crimes). There was the civil suit that was settled by our government OUT OF COURT. But no one was tried for the crime(s). 9-11 and the WTC didn't cause this. Arrogance and "above the law" attitudes caused it.
A year later a bunch of women and children - along with their crazy leader and a few of his like minded buddies - were roasted alive in a religious compound outside of Waco, Texas. Our friends at the ATF told the world the Davidians started the fires and killed their own before the fires killed them.
Our tax dollars at work!
One more thing (at least) - I think all this talk about Facists and Nazis and so on fits better on the Politics forum than on the Religion forum.
Again - if you don't hear from me every once in awhile in the near future - send someone out to fnd me - please!(WHOA!!! - where did that black helicopter come from?!?!?)
Well said News! You pointed out the sharp difference. People have struggled for habeas corpus for a thousand years, and it must be defended again because the Obama Administration by decree turned back the clock by three hundred years.
If there was a true moderate Republican running against the presumptive jerk I would vote Republican for President, and that would be the only time in fifty years of voting.
The Republicans are missing a slam dunk this time only because their party is lead by a disgusting bunch of right wing knuckle draggers even less concerned than Obama about the civil liberties, and the welfare of all the people.
Don't get me wrong, I strongly agree that we've had an abuse of power since GW got his way with the "terrorist surveillance program" along with water boarding, etc. Allowing anyone to be executed or held without due process is wrong as well. I am not arguing that at all. All of this is part of scare tactics based on our Orwellian migration toward a permanent state of war. I am fairly confident that over time we can correct these abuses and elect officials that will insure this insanity is discontinued. In the meantime, I am saying that these abuses are not obviously causing individuals to be pulled from the streets and executed in mass, and that this is very isolated at this time (News named two instances). Should we take notice and action? YES! Do I fear for my life or my family or friends? NO. I believe the argument News presented made it sound like the Nazi death camps are already here and the rest of us should flee to the land down under. A similar fear is being presented by the NRA that if you let one gun restriction law get enacted, the next thing will be that all guns will be taken away from everyone. Either representation is extreme and certainly not close to reality.
The segway to national politics is somewhat easy to justify since religion provides the key ingredient for people wanting power as well as offering excuses to take away rites. The sad thing is that the roots of religion are all based on ignorance from misguided leaps of faith originating from that simple feeling that "there must be a creator". And once one concedes "there must be a creator", it has somehow worked its way down to detailed scriptures written by tribal man explaining how that creator (in our own image or vice versa) is watching our every move so that we can be caught doing something evil as described in this vague book of parables, and eventually be sent to everlasting torture. Religion has held us back as a species and continues to bathe us in ignorance at a time when we are approaching an apex of scientific knowledge that could literally allow us to escape the struggles of our evolutionary rise. The sacred books of all religions continue to provide the chains of ignorance needed to keep the plutocrats in power. Why would the ruling elites want to educate the masses? And it is looking like one of the most outrageous of religions is about to have one of their own gain the office of President. Should we believe Romney is a true believer of such a crazy religion, or should we believe he is smart enough to know it is a bunch of "malarkey" and is using it to gain power? Either proposition is extremely scary. OK, are be back on topic? :-) And News, your "slippery slope" is just one of many I'm not ready to get too paranoid about.
Morn'n ALL!!! :-)
I think Gentle Ben was talking about Ruby Ridge and Randy Weaver's family, not Anwar al-Aulaqi and his son.
I've always been shocked by the Ruby Ridge and Waco debacles as apparently the ATF felt it was better to come in with guns first rather than just pick up Weaver, or Koresh, when they were in town buying groceries or walking down the street.
I reckon it was a much bigger adrenaline rush to conduct a "raid", much in the same vein as no-knock raids still going on in the middle of the night in America, than just pick up the suspects when they were going about their daily lives.
Sometimes government law enforcement agencies seen really much more like the jackbooted thugs of the Nazi party than public servants. All brought to you in the name of your protection.
As the founding fathers knew and expressed via that Second Amendment, "Who protects the citizens from the government when the government becomes the criminal?"
Supposedly, in the civilized urban world, that is the job of our highly politicized Supreme Court, however, those black robed justices were nowhere to be found when the ATF shot Randy Weaver's wife and child.
Oops, since this is the religion blog I reckon I should have ended that last post with "Amen."
"The sacred books of all religions continue to provide the chains of ignorance needed to keep the plutocrats in power."
I agree with you concerning the major religions of western civilization RT.
However, many of the religions of eastern civilization are primarily concerned with seeking enlightenment, as opposed to accepting dogma. Thus there is not the same conflict with science, instead they are congruent.
OKR, I'm fine with the eastern religions you mention, as long as they remain benign to those who do not choose to follow them, whereas followers of anyone who is believed to have direct links with the supernatural (aka xtians, muslims) are not to be trusted as they follow those who could not possibly know what they claim. Seeking self-enlightenment is certainly a worthy cause, and much of our enlightenment comes thru the true understanding of how everything works in our physical world (aka science). Everything else is pure speculation.
News: "Where does that sort of thing end after it has begun? Will you be next? or maybe someone you love?"
The slippery slope here is too big a leap. al-Aulaqi was an American born radical Muslim cleric who was a leading figure in Al Qaeda, and was killed in the terrorist state of Yemen by a drone. I don't have any friends or family that I love running around the world associating with terrorists that I would be surprised if a well-placed missile might take their life. Do you? Your slippery slope is a much bigger leap than the gun lobby fearful of their guns being taken away if one single restriction is passed limiting who can by AK47 assault rifles.
News: "When your head of state has the legal right to order an Army death squad to execute any and all other citizens he chooses for "national security reasons, you have no democracy. You have no rights. You have nothing but a serious dictatorship problem."
Come on, you don't think your president and service members can carry out punishments totally unknown to you and the general public? I'm not justifying it, but I'm also not na*ve enough to believe it doesn't happen "in the national interest" of any state.
Your sense of outrage is totally unjustified on this issue.
And calling our President (any of our Presidents) a "dictator" is absurd as well. When you can almost be removed from office for lying about someone giving you oral sex, our checks and balances are almost too good.
Back on religion point: No tears here shed for the loss of any religious radical! One less idiot in the world claiming to have connections with a higher power is probably a good thing.
"First Native American Saint" - Just proves that once you believe in supernatural things, it can lead to totally ridiculous beliefs such as Christianity or other organized religions. Believing your land and animals contain real spirits is one way to give them respect and to take care of them, but it is not necessary to understand and appreciate our environment or to appreciate all living things. "Woo" is not required for any of that, and it just leads to "woo" in other areas. Sorry Nana, "woo" is "woo".
Hey, anybody else notice this?
Now that Native Americans have a little cash in their pockets from the casino biz, the Vatican decides it's time for a Native American saint.
Nice PR move fellers. The Catholic Church and money are like an alcoholic and liquor, they just can't help themselves.
I'm with Sarah Silverman. If you really want to follow the teachings of Jesus, how 'bout you sell that golden dome and feed the world.
News, sorry, just don't feel the outrage you are trying to instill on this blog. One of the byproducts of being in an endless war against terror is certainly the loss of some rights. I am aware of those, and I disapprove, but I just don't feel your ourtrage... yet. Again, comparing our actions with that of Nazi Germany is not a fair comparison at all. Am I the only one that feels News is making a mountain out of a mole hill? So many links and so little time... think I'll get another brewski :-)
When you read the transcripts of the hearings and trials of the Weaver incident - you may get another picture of what really happened. Most of the time serving a warrant does not involve hiding in the woods in full camo with sniper guns and killing 13 year old boys. The mess all started when an ATF informant talked Weaver into making and selling him a sawed off shotgun. Then when Weaver refused to turn into a snitch for the feds, they admit to changing the court date and not advising him of the change, after which the warrant was issued for failure to appear.
Some of you are always talking about "facts ' ... too bad you don't look deeply enough for them before making bold statements.
Koresh was a somewhat different issue - but result was the same, a big show of force put on by ATF, with lots of cover up to follow.
Have a great day!
I'm with Gentle Ben on Ruby Ridge. Yes, from the perspective of the government it may have been a lawful warrant.
However the method of execution of that warrant, which was thinly based on entrapment in the first place, could not have been more unconstitutional.
Same thing sort of applies to Koresh and the
Branch Dividians in Waco. Why such a big show of force? My understanding is that it was not hard to find Koresh walking around town, so why the millitary invasion? Why not just arrest the guy when he's out in public?
We know why, because the millitary style approach was more likely to result in conflict, which means you don't need much evidence for conviction as resistance it's self will provide grounds for arrest.
One thing for sure. As our culture and politics swing ever farther right, we will see more and more instances of the government using it's power against it's own citizens.
Funny, the end result of the tea party clamor for less government intrusion and more liberty will no doubt lead to more and more instances of facist behavior and oppression of those who seek to live truly free of government intrusion.
Just ask a woman how she feels about the government telling her when she can and can not reproduce. Welfare mom? No more children, dang it! Pregnant teenager or single working woman? You must deliver that baby! Is that not somewhat of a dichotomy?
The new kill on my command authority usurped by President Obama is a festering sore on the body politic. Just as such a malignacy on a corporeal body must be excised before it spreads, bringing death, or dismemberment, so it goes with that larger body's putrefaction.
Some thoughts that occurred to me as I reflected on what to say that would be in concurrence with the dedicated purpose of this religion blog, and at the same time demonstrate the unavoidable melding of religion, and politics:
If you can't hear the sound of one hand clapping are you looking at a convicted muslim thief?
If a tree falls in the forest, and no is around to hear it did the tree fall in a shut down National Park?
Is it harder to walk a straight and narrow path if you were blown up by an I E D in Iraq even if your legs are intact?
Is the quote, "First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is" a cogent summary of Mitt Romney's political philosophy?
Finally, the most apt zen quote concerning the needs of the people as addressed by the Democratic, and Republican Parties in this presidential election year: "when you seek it, you can not find it". ;)
News, I'm not sure why you are so concerned about al Awlaki? Are you sympathetic to third world activists operating in war torn areas who are part of a religion that spreads hatred to anyone who does not follow their particular brand of religion, which also suppresses women and promotes slavery? Do you feel at least slight outrage about the execution of Bin Ladin as well?
Religious anti-gay rant with a VERY surprising ending:
This is a great example of how bigotry can be easily justified by simple interpretation of a holy book. And better yet, an example of how it was used in the not too distant past. This is only 2 minutes but what a surprise!
You said no one gave the order to kill anyone - whe in fact - and the official transcripts bear this out - the rules of engagement written by the director of this operation while on his way to Ruby Ridge (not even there yet) gave explicit orders to shoot any male on the property outside the cabin with a gun. Mrs Weaver was inside the cabin with a baby in her arms for pete's sake.
I suppose if they had been american born al-quaeda operatives living in a remote part of the northwest it would have been a disgrace to kill them - and illegal- in the eyes of some. Who knows? Just my humble opinion - nothing scientific about it.
"does anyone here see this as a BAD thing?"-Bohdi
Not me, for I consider it progress.
I get it - when cornered - ATTACK!
After attacking - turn tail and run ...
Oh well - TTFN
By the way - How's it going OKR ...
Got a little out of sorts there ... Hope all is well!
Most of the time I just sit back and watch, waiting for a safe place to wade into the fray. Just couldn't stay out of that one. Thanks for the debate news. Keeps us sharp.
Fair to middlin' GB, fair to middlin'. :)
Bohdi are you one of those guys that are still going through Drive Through lanes ordering Freedom Fries? ;)
So, this seems an appropriate place for one of my favorite jokes that insults three cultures all at once.
You guys know the difference between heaven and hell?
In heaven, the French are the cooks, the Germans are the engineers, and the English are the police.
In hell, the English are the cooks, the French are the engineers and the Germans are the police.
Thank you very much. I'll be here all week....
And to answer your question, Bohdi. I'm with OKR on the increase in atheism and agnosticism.
I see it as progress. Progress toward a society based on logic and reason based ethics that leaves out the hocus pocus of the supernatural.
I don't believe in ghosts, paranormal activity, or "the devil made me do it" either.
I do believe that intellect and intuition can be mistaken for extrasensory perception. My view is that prescient vision is really just informed perception in the first place. It really isn't that hard to predict the future if you are paying attention and learn as you go.
For instance, who didn't see the inevitable wall street drop coming this week as the middle-aged angry white republican running dogs of wall street try and make the economy look as bad as possible in the run up to the election? Yes, Virginia, there are rich folks out there who manipulate the markets. Why do you think we need a "Securities and Exchange Commission" and a library full of financial and banking regulations?
But I digress. The jury is still out on alien life. I will entertain the idea that we are not alone in the universe and that alien visits to earth are possible. Not quite ready to get on the alien abduction and government coverups of alien evidence bandwagon however.
If aliens do come to visit let's hope they aren't the bumbling idiots that we are or the results might not be good.
Millions of folks looking for fulfillment and meaning in their lives is a great thing.
When the spiritual ideology becomes confused with the system of laws is where I part ways with the religious of any sect. But that hajj is an amazing product of modern civilization.
I also agree with Hawking on pretty much anything he says as he's significantly smarter than me.
I'm willing to give some credit to the idea that "life" got seeded here by a happy cosmic accident. Maybe hitched in with an asteroid or meteorite that brought that force which provided a blueprint for self assembling molecules to create proteins and amino acids then further encoding a blueprint for ever expanding and self altering reproduction that we call life.
Programmed to produce organisms of ever increasing variety and complexity those that this environment, which is ever varied from ocean depths to polar caps and atmosphere, favored prospered over eons perhaps.
I reckon that's all I need on the subject of how we got here. I'm more in to what the future holds.
Given the game of survival of the species we are playing here the best thing we can have as a goal is to learn as much as possible, collectively, about our world, selves, galaxy and universe.
Which is pretty much what we humans have been doing except for those periods where religion gets in the way and does things like burn the libraries of the Moors during the crusades, imprison Galileo for saying the world was not the center of the solar system nor flat, or bans teaching of what I have exactly just described in this blog in schools.
It appears we are warming up to the 'fundamentalist vs. reality' fight in American once again. I just wonder where we are going to find another Clarence Darrow for our century. Of course that right there is interesting. Apparently it takes about 4 generations for history to start repeating its self. In fact, I think it was Darrow who said, "That's the problem with history, it repeats it's self."
We now have United States Senators standing up and proclaiming the earth is 9000 years old, much like William Jennings Bryant in the Scopes Trial in Tennessee about 90 years ago.
Logically speaking that then means that all of the fields of anthropology, archaeology, geology, biology, physics, and chemistry are all wrong. How stinkin' ironic is it that an offshoot of geology, and the knowledge proven therein, is oil, of course, that finances their campaigns?
Perhaps we are doomed by that program that encoded life and lead to us as it is stuck in a history repeating loop yet we gain increasing knowledge and technology until we get to the point of wiping ourselves out (Armageddon anyone?) and then the entire encoding sequence that leads to proteins and amino acids begins again.
It'll be an interesting ride to see how long it takes and what transpires on the way there, eh?
Science is always discovering something new or seeing something for the first time. It has always been there but we have just achieved the technology to see it or discover it.
So news for you to say that,"One thing is for sure mate, everything within this Universe is subject to the Laws of Physics. The sum total of the laws of physics rules this Universe absolutely." Then we have to assume that you know 'absolutely' everything there is to know about the laws of physics and the universe.
Your prideful nature that allows you to believe that will never allow you to believe in God because you are one.
LOL, Bohdi, you blasphemer. Maybe I should say heretic. Not sure. Anyway, good one.
All hail the ornery one!
Bohdi: "..and I will face my death the same way, with happiness and looking forward to seeiing what is next"
Do you really believe there is something "next"? Care to guess what it might be?
Bohdi, be careful with what you say, you'll have rr3 worshiping you :-) Oh, I don't know if you have written enough for others to come up with a holy book about yet. Perhaps after you passing, say in about 75 years, others will discover this blog and start trying to sum up your writings and actions as best they can, maybe even stretch reality a wee bit. You've covered the fear thing pretty well, but you'll need to expand a bit on what kind of eternal life everyone will have.
News, these religious politicians are really scary in that they would ultimately like to make this country in their image, a theological state. And such a state would eventually end up not unlike Iran or Pakistan. Ultimately, we'd have clashes between those religious idiots in power and other religions, as well as with all of us who don't believe the nonsense they'd like to force us to believe. I don't believe and I can't believe, and therefore something must be wrong with me, right? I'm going to the same place all those innocent souls are going to that Bohdi referred to who never knew of JC, straight to hell in the Xtian view. The difference is that I've read the bible, heard all the stories, went to church up to pre-teen years, and there is still no way I could ever find myself believing in all that nonsense. What is really sad is that the Republican party has put themselves in bed with the evangelicals and should they take control of the Presidency and the Senate, will continue their push to force religious actions on the rest of us. A perfectly legitimate political view of fiscal conservatism has been hijacked by a small but substantial group of wing nuts. I hope there is a substantial group of secular Republicans who will vote the other side to send a message that they want their party back, but unfortunately that is probably pure fantasy on my part.
The Catholics think that everyone who is not Catholic ends up in purgatory, not heaven, but not quite hell either.
Then, I reckon, though was never really clear as the nuns really didn't like answering the tough questions, you can earn your way out of purgatory (or maybe not, as their dogma states you can never enjoy the kingdom of heaven if not baptized catholic) by good behavior, I think.
Of course the Catholics are big on punishment absolving your sins. So I reckon purgatory is kind of like being sentenced to the dungeon. If you survive, we might let you join the kingdom. Depends on how you take to purgatory I reckon.
Something in there about having to be absolved of your original sin that you were born through baptism that allows you to reach heaven. Those that are not baptized, well, you're SOL, I reckon.
But that purgatory thing. Never was clear on what goes on there. Sometimes they claimed that your soul just wanders aimlessly in nothingness there. Sounds like you must be sentenced to the inside of Michelle Bachman's head or John Boehner's heart.
You talkin' about that Abraham guy who kills vampires, ended slavery in the US, and who looks alot like Daniel Day Lewis?
(You may not get this as you probably haven't been privy to all the plethora of tv ads 6 months ago for the "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Killer" movie followed up now with the new docu-drama movie "Lincoln.")
Note to self: It's not humor if you have to explain it.
Smart Dog: "But that purgatory thing. Never was clear on what goes on there."
They really are not clear on what goes on in Heaven either, yet that is where all the "so sure" crowd is striving so hard to go. I don't think I've ever heard of anything so enticing about Heaven, and perhaps that is why they stress how eternal hell is where you don't want to go. Is Heaven a state of one of the "pie faced" Moonies on a perpetual LSD trip just enjoying the bliss of god? That sure doesn't sound appealing to me (LSD maybe :-). What will we be able to do in Heaven (I mean YOU, cause I've long ago forfeited my right to go there)? All the stuff I like to do is what is going to send me to hell :-)
I am reminded of my second favorite joke of all time.
One day this fellow who died found himself in heaven which was laid out a lot like a Holiday Inn Resort hotel. There he was in the lobby, with others, waiting.
Then St. Peter showed up and informed the group that their stay in heaven would start with a tour.
St. Peter started them down the hall, and showed off the weight room, the pool, the lounge area. They went on to pass several of those big banquet rooms with what looked like big parties or wedding receptions going on inside.
As the group came to a corner in the hallway, St. Peter stopped the group and informed them that as they rounded the corner, they would be passing by a set of closed doors and all in the group needed to be very, very quiet...and for God's sake, don't open the closed doors.
Well, the group passed by the closed room with no incident and after they were in the clear, a group member piped up with a question for St. Peter.
"So, what was in that room back there, St. Peter?"
"Well, that was the Baptists, they think they are the only ones up here."
I'd rather have them under Obama, then in 2 or 3 new useless wars under Mitt.
Good one SD. Baptists are such a fun group! Bohdi, if you spent a whole year in a seminary, did you ever get a sense of what was so good about Heaven? Or can anyone answer just what type of reward Heaven is supposed to represent. I've never heard anything positive about what Heaven is supposed to be other than the absence of eternal torture in hell? Not much positive in that :-) RR3, what are you expectations of Heaven?
Good to see you back Cheetah ...
How's things in the jungle (or savannah - whichever the case might be)???
Really? An article of a missing child, and we can't read it because we didn't pay and are over our free limit? Wow.
Here is some really serious stuff for you guys to wrap your minds around as you wait for some new sheep to shear. ;)
And here's a nursery rhyme to lull you each to sleep, (in your case News, a nap). It reminded me of somebodies Bohdi, but darned if I can remember who. Maybe you guys can figure it out. :)
Posting a comment requires free registration: