Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(May 6, 2010 at 4:36 am)tackattack Wrote: 1. Don't forget the holy wars, dark ages, the inquisition, Hui Minorities' War, the 30 years war, Hitler, ritual suicides and human sacrifices, etc. Or are you going to target only one or 2 religions. Modern Paganism, buddhism, shinto, Din-i-Ilahi, Confucianism, Bön, Māori religion, non-denominational Christianity, etc. are all religions that I believe teach tolerance of others and haven't started any wars, done any ritualistic killlings, mutilate their genitals, or hold child molestation seminars. Let me ask, is it fanatacism and intolerance you want to abolish or religion?
It doesn't follow that all of those things are necessarily due to fanaticism. While religion can harbor fanaticism, its foul acts aren't perpetrated solely by a ragtag bunch of nutjobs. Religion allows these ideologies to grow, and employs doctrines that are absolutely immoral in a secular and civilized society. When a group promotes bigoted doctrines, such as any of the Abrahamic religions, it should be taken seriously, and not brushed off as a misinterpretation of the group's tenets.
I can go on in detail about how all of the religions you listed strove for political control and influence, just as well as any other religion to fulfill their own agendas. I'll try and dig up the thread for you, I have it saved somewhere.
(May 6, 2010 at 4:36 am)tackattack Wrote: 2. I'm not knocking on science, I love innovation and scienific principles. Just as the bible thumpers could use a lot less holier-than-thou attitudes; A lot of atheists I've spoken with could use anti-supr-smarmy pills. The world doesn't need religion to behave, but I'm not just going to throw it away.
Why not?
(May 6, 2010 at 4:36 am)tackattack Wrote: If we threw away all religions based off of small groups or singular people misguiding others against the doctrine's of their religion, why not get rid of the entirety of the house and senate.
1. Yes, reform is needed in politics. We have too many crooked politicians.
2. The fanatics are not reacting in spite of their doctrine, but as a direct result of it. That's the problem. When a person blows himself up on a crowded street because his Holy Book commands him to destroy those who don't submit to the will of Allah, he's not acting on his own accord - he's performing a moral action in regards to his religion.
(May 6, 2010 at 4:36 am)tackattack Wrote: By percentage, I'd wager there was a lot more corruption in Govt. than in the entirety of religion.
Define corruption.
(May 6, 2010 at 4:36 am)tackattack Wrote: 3. Do you mind citing some references for your statement "It's no secret that the least religious nations are doing the best economically and developmentally" and "they give more to charities than their more religious counterparts." I'd like to do some of the reading on that.
Human Development IndexMore than half of the top 10 are highly secularized, Norway leads.)
(May 6, 2010 at 7:48 am)Atheist_named_Christian Wrote:
(May 6, 2010 at 7:06 am)tackattack Wrote: I wish that religion was a strictly uninfluential aspect of society and that we could all seperate our emotional, intellectual and spiritual sides more as individuals. That would help limit religions control over political and intellectual pursuits (excluding the theologicaly related sciences), though I don't see it happening anywhere in my lifetime.
This could only be if religion was non-existent or at least completely irrelevant to people (I think this is about the same thing, anyway). Or how could something you consider an integral part of your life not be influential? To me, "Religion" and "not influential" are highly contradicting each other.
Religion is an integral part of my life, as is my job, my political view, my choice of brands, my entertainment, my views on societ, my friends, family, etc. Everything within "our social world" is integral to who we are and at east influence our subconscious decision in other areas. What some believers do and very few if any atheists do is deliniate their spiritual sides, wants and needs seperate from their emotion, social and intellectual sides. One of the tenants of Christianity is to be in the world and not of the world. That's a blazhay way of saying don't get caught up in mundane things and focus on the spiritual. I don't really let my religious side have much choice over which road I drive to work, or which entree I select from a menu, those things are mundane. Religion should have little if any control over anyhting other than spirtual needs and wants. It should not be forced into schools, or politics or job screenings, etc. was my point.
(May 6, 2010 at 9:28 am)SleepingDemon Wrote:
Why do christians believe that christianity is older than it actually is? Christianity was so insignificant during the 1st century that the Roman's didn't even see it as a threat to their already existing theology. Christianity began as a highly varied practice amongst cavedwelling cults, and it wasn't until the council of Nicea that an actual "church" and unified doctrine existed. Constantine and the religious leaders from the larger christian sects worked out a series of compromises to unify the religion to unify the empire. Your church began as a political ploy to strengthen the Roman empire. It's doctrine was taken from a thousand different belief systems that existed at the time, it's holidays mirrored pagan holidays to ease the transition. The only reason that christianity is as widespread as it is today is because it had an empire behind it. The Romans purged Europe, either converting or annhilating every opposing culture and religion. It's insulting for christianity and morality to even be in the same sentence. Christianity burned the world in it's first millenia of existence, a lot, a LOT of people died at the hands of the religious ruling body of Rome.
Early christianity wasn't this diluted jesus loves you hippy nonsense we see these days. The church used it's massive influence within the government to destroy any remaining ideologies that could threaten it. A lot of cultures and religions simply ceased to exist in europe after it's inception, not because the church was spreading it's morality, but because the church justified apartheid and genocide as god's work. A few real history classes might be a good idea dude.
And ANC, religion is a philisophical idea, however it's believers don't see it as such. I would have no problems with it were it simply used as a philosophy, however instead I can't even watch a presidential election without it coming up.
Romans didn't see a lot coming Lots of people died at the hands of ruling bodies of the time, men seek wealth and power. That's not in the tenants of the nicene creed you brought up though. There have been tons of attrocties of lots of people over the centuries. Attributng them to all of religion as most atheists do would be like me saing all germans are genocidal maniacs becasue of hitler even today. Personal acccountability people. I agree however that more religious people should use it more as a philosophy and stop with the fanaticism, keep it out of the mundane.
(May 6, 2010 at 9:42 am)Thor Wrote:
(May 6, 2010 at 4:36 am)tackattack Wrote: 1- No I don't think we need some "magic man" in the sky or God to tell us what's moral. I don't believe I ever said that.
Okay, you did say this:
Quote:I'd rather have society guided by principles of acceptance, tolerance and a sense of morality dictated by doctrine.
So what is the source of this "doctrine" if not a deity?
Quote:2-I don't believe I said "universal" doctrine at all either.
I meant "universal" within your particular religion, not "universal" in that it applies to everyone, everywhere.
Quote:I'd like it if there was a universal doctrine, but since religion is so subjective it's very hard to come up with the "axiom of morality" everyone is looking for.
And this reinforces my point. Devout believers within a particular religion will disagree on what is moral and what isn't. There is no universal morality for all things.
1- By man. God didn't say, build me a book to keep theese tenants. JEsus didn't say " Make thee a religious organization around my teaching and go purge society of anything different" Man took it upon itself to record it's thoughts , tenants and history to help future generation define who and what God is. Where that was done with reverence and humility it was inspired by God. Where it was done selfishly and for gain the translation was slanted and fundamentalists constantly use it evade responsibility for their own prejudices and hatred.
2- Good clarification, however while the rituals, practives and dogma are subjective (as would be expected from a man-made fallible creation) and has caused much fracturng within Christianity I'm pretty sure we all (catholic, protestant, non-denominational, lutheran, etc) rally around the nicene creed as a starting point. There may not be a universal/ regional morality, but if you can identify a constant/axiom with which to derive one, it would be easier. Believers use God as their moral absolute to keep their personal morals in check. Using a fluctuating societal standard as a reference for subjective morality is only slightly more flawed than aninvisible sky-daddy
(May 6, 2010 at 10:54 am)tavarish Wrote:
(May 6, 2010 at 4:36 am)tackattack Wrote: 1. Don't forget the holy wars, dark ages, the inquisition, Hui Minorities' War, the 30 years war, Hitler, ritual suicides and human sacrifices, etc. Or are you going to target only one or 2 religions. Modern Paganism, buddhism, shinto, Din-i-Ilahi, Confucianism, Bön, Māori religion, non-denominational Christianity, etc. are all religions that I believe teach tolerance of others and haven't started any wars, done any ritualistic killlings, mutilate their genitals, or hold child molestation seminars. Let me ask, is it fanatacism and intolerance you want to abolish or religion?
It doesn't follow that all of those things are necessarily due to fanaticism. While religion can harbor fanaticism, its foul acts aren't perpetrated solely by a ragtag bunch of nutjobs. Religion allows these ideologies to grow, and employs doctrines that are absolutely immoral in a secular and civilized society. When a group promotes bigoted doctrines, such as any of the Abrahamic religions, it should be taken seriously, and not brushed off as a misinterpretation of the group's tenets.
I can go on in detail about how all of the religions you listed strove for political control and influence, just as well as any other religion to fulfill their own agendas. I'll try and dig up the thread for you, I have it saved somewhere.
(May 6, 2010 at 4:36 am)tackattack Wrote: 2. I'm not knocking on science, I love innovation and scienific principles. Just as the bible thumpers could use a lot less holier-than-thou attitudes; A lot of atheists I've spoken with could use anti-supr-smarmy pills. The world doesn't need religion to behave, but I'm not just going to throw it away.
Why not?
(May 6, 2010 at 4:36 am)tackattack Wrote: If we threw away all religions based off of small groups or singular people misguiding others against the doctrine's of their religion, why not get rid of the entirety of the house and senate.
1. Yes, reform is needed in politics. We have too many crooked politicians.
2. The fanatics are not reacting in spite of their doctrine, but as a direct result of it. That's the problem. When a person blows himself up on a crowded street because his Holy Book commands him to destroy those who don't submit to the will of Allah, he's not acting on his own accord - he's performing a moral action in regards to his religion.
(May 6, 2010 at 4:36 am)tackattack Wrote: By percentage, I'd wager there was a lot more corruption in Govt. than in the entirety of religion.
Define corruption.
(May 6, 2010 at 4:36 am)tackattack Wrote: 3. Do you mind citing some references for your statement "It's no secret that the least religious nations are doing the best economically and developmentally" and "they give more to charities than their more religious counterparts." I'd like to do some of the reading on that.
Human Development IndexMore than half of the top 10 are highly secularized, Norway leads.)
1a-I'm not brushing off any of the deeds of generations past. I'm correcting your interpretation of Christianity. My denomination does not teach bigotry or intolerance. I am Christian so it factors hugely into my definition of Christianity. Try and see it from my perspective. Churches I've been to, even of different denominations, all abhor the Church that goes to schools and boycotts homosexuality. That's just one example. You say I'm brushing aside past occurences. I'm saying your attribting all of the publicized bad to the entirety of the whole. See my German comment above.
1b- I doubt you'll convince me with any references that the entirety is ever wholey or equally responsible for the actions of the part. I don't doubt someone somewhere in the religions have sought power, it's a natural human compulsion (and we're all human), but attribute it to personal accountability and stop blaming the whole for things obviously in contradiction with the teaching of that belief.
2-Firstly, Suicide is forbidden.
"O ye who believe!... [do not] kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire..." (Qur'an 4:29-30).
and mass murder even for retalition is forbidden as well.
This practice was directly forbidden in the Qur'an (2:178-179). Following this statement of law, the Qur'an says, "After this, whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave chastisement" (2:178).
so an obvious misinerpretation happened somewhere. I'm pretty sure most of the mulims I know don't interpret the Qur'an the same was as the Jihadists. I agree that fanatacism and closed-minded interpretaion without a system of balance is definately a recipe for disaster every time. Do you condemn all Muslims for the acts of the fanatics?
3-corruption - motives that lead to the the act of illegal or unlawful practices I guess.
4-Thanks for the reading.. I'l close this out and talk about that later.. this post is long enough.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
He specifically asked "how something I.." so I just was responding to a question. .. Now if only every atheist was as dismissive, there would be far lessconflicts between thesits and non-theists. I hope this is a trend
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
(May 7, 2010 at 7:10 am)tackattack Wrote: He specifically asked "how something I.." so I just was responding to a question. .. Now if only every atheist was as dismissive, there would be far lessconflicts between thesits and non-theists. I hope this is a trend
No one really cares sweety....and yes many atheists are dismissive and live and let live...
xtians seem to be the only ones who feel threatened.
"The Universe is run by the complex interweaving of three elements: energy, matter, and enlightened self-interest." G'Kar-B5
May 7, 2010 at 9:34 am (This post was last modified: May 7, 2010 at 9:34 am by tavarish.)
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: 1a-I'm not brushing off any of the deeds of generations past. I'm correcting your interpretation of Christianity. My denomination does not teach bigotry or intolerance. I am Christian so it factors hugely into my definition of Christianity. Try and see it from my perspective. Churches I've been to, even of different denominations, all abhor the Church that goes to schools and boycotts homosexuality. That's just one example. You say I'm brushing aside past occurences. I'm saying your attribting all of the publicized bad to the entirety of the whole. See my German comment above.
Here's the issue. Every religious person thinks their church does no wrong, spreads no intolerance, and it's always the other ones that are morally corrupt.
Here's a small reality check. Christian doctrine is bigoted and intolerant. Having the idea that someone will burn for eternity for believing something different than you, and having it completely justified is extremely judgmental, not to mention grossly intolerant. Having the audacity to say your book holds the answers to mankind's most pertinent questions when there are many more where that came from, is absolutely disingenuous. Making the claim that someone sacrificed himself FOR you as a sort of payment for things you haven't done is seriously corrupt.
Christianity actively convinces people (and is quite good at it) that you are unclean and need a savior - the religion allegedly preaches love but the Bible teaches the contrary, that the worst thing anyone can ever do is blaspheme or deny the one true God, a God who made you knowing your nature, but hates what you've become and loves you enough that he sent himself down as a blood sacrifice to himself to put you in some kind of binding contract when fulfilled, will culminate with an eternity of servitude and praise to the one who did all of this.
Of course, there are churches that cherry pick their beliefs. Most of them do, because you can't all be biblical literalists and expect people to go along with it without strife, but this has nothing to do with the tenets of its doctrine or the highly intolerant practices it has justified directly (not necessarily indirectly).
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: 1b- I doubt you'll convince me with any references that the entirety is ever wholey or equally responsible for the actions of the part. I don't doubt someone somewhere in the religions have sought power, it's a natural human compulsion (and we're all human), but attribute it to personal accountability and stop blaming the whole for things obviously in contradiction with the teaching of that belief.
Here's the issue. I do attribute it to personal accountability, and the chain goes all the way back to the founders of the religion. The point I was making is that religion is mainly a means of control, not necessarily of personal enlightenment, even though it may seem that way from the inside of the circle.
Accountability doesn't just stop with the "extremists" because they interpret something differently than you.
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: 2-Firstly, Suicide is forbidden.
"O ye who believe!... [do not] kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire..." (Qur'an 4:29-30).
It's not suicide if you're a martyr, which is exactly what they are. This is one of the highest honors a Muslim can have.
Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
Qur'an (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
Qur'an (2:207) - "And there is the type of man who gives his life to earn the pleasure of Allah..."
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: and mass murder even for retalition is forbidden as well.
This practice was directly forbidden in the Qur'an (2:178-179). Following this statement of law, the Qur'an says, "After this, whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave chastisement" (2:178).
Unless it's for the infidel.
2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: so an obvious misinerpretation happened somewhere.
On your part perhaps.
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: I'm pretty sure most of the mulims I know don't interpret the Qur'an the same was as the Jihadists.
Because they also embrace secular values. Most Muslims is Western countries also don't condone Sharia Law, but it doesn't mean it's not part of the Islamic doctrine. Just because those who kill in the name of Allah are small in number, it doesn't mean they're interpreting the book incorrectly. When a book calls for the killing of the unbeliever, it's pretty clear what message it's sending. Most people don't because it conflicts their own moral values - not ones dictated by a holy book.
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: I agree that fanatacism and closed-minded interpretaion without a system of balance is definately a recipe for disaster every time. Do you condemn all Muslims for the acts of the fanatics?
No. I condemn the religion for its doctrine. What people do as a result of that doctrine is a harmful byproduct.
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: 3-corruption - motives that lead to the the act of illegal or unlawful practices I guess.
Unlawful in what sense? You can be operating under God's Law and break the laws of the land, and vice versa. Therein lies my point. What side are you standing on to make the distinction of corruption?
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: 4-Thanks for the reading.. I'l close this out and talk about that later.. this post is long enough.
May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am (This post was last modified: May 7, 2010 at 10:33 am by tackattack.)
@ Kichigaineko- I would respectfully request you stop calling me sweety, honey and the like... I'd slap my mom for calling me that. Feel free to call me dave, tack, tacky, or any other variation on my actual name.
(May 7, 2010 at 9:34 am)tavarish Wrote:
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: 1a-I'm not brushing off any of the deeds of generations past. I'm correcting your interpretation of Christianity. My denomination does not teach bigotry or intolerance. I am Christian so it factors hugely into my definition of Christianity. Try and see it from my perspective. Churches I've been to, even of different denominations, all abhor the Church that goes to schools and boycotts homosexuality. That's just one example. You say I'm brushing aside past occurences. I'm saying your attribting all of the publicized bad to the entirety of the whole. See my German comment above.
Here's the issue. Every religious person thinks their church does no wrong, spreads no intolerance, and it's always the other ones that are morally corrupt.
Here's a small reality check. Christian doctrine is bigoted and intolerant. Having the idea that someone will burn for eternity for believing something different than you, and having it completely justified is extremely judgmental, not to mention grossly intolerant. Having the audacity to say your book holds the answers to mankind's most pertinent questions when there are many more where that came from, is absolutely disingenuous. Making the claim that someone sacrificed himself FOR you as a sort of payment for things you haven't done is seriously corrupt.
Christianity actively convinces people (and is quite good at it) that you are unclean and need a savior - the religion allegedly preaches love but the Bible teaches the contrary, that the worst thing anyone can ever do is blaspheme or deny the one true God, a God who made you knowing your nature, but hates what you've become and loves you enough that he sent himself down as a blood sacrifice to himself to put you in some kind of binding contract when fulfilled, will culminate with an eternity of servitude and praise to the one who did all of this.
Of course, there are churches that cherry pick their beliefs. Most of them do, because you can't all be biblical literalists and expect people to go along with it without strife, but this has nothing to do with the tenets of its doctrine or the highly intolerant practices it has justified directly (not necessarily indirectly).
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: 1b- I doubt you'll convince me with any references that the entirety is ever wholey or equally responsible for the actions of the part. I don't doubt someone somewhere in the religions have sought power, it's a natural human compulsion (and we're all human), but attribute it to personal accountability and stop blaming the whole for things obviously in contradiction with the teaching of that belief.
Here's the issue. I do attribute it to personal accountability, and the chain goes all the way back to the founders of the religion. The point I was making is that religion is mainly a means of control, not necessarily of personal enlightenment, even though it may seem that way from the inside of the circle.
Accountability doesn't just stop with the "extremists" because they interpret something differently than you.
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: 2-Firstly, Suicide is forbidden. "O ye who believe!... [do not] kill yourselves, for truly Allah has been to you Most Merciful. If any do that in rancour and injustice, soon shall We cast him into the Fire..." (Qur'an 4:29-30).
It's not suicide if you're a martyr, which is exactly what they are. This is one of the highest honors a Muslim can have.
Qur'an (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward."
Qur'an (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Qur'an: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."
Qur'an (2:207) - "And there is the type of man who gives his life to earn the pleasure of Allah..."
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: and mass murder even for retalition is forbidden as well. This practice was directly forbidden in the Qur'an (2:178-179). Following this statement of law, the Qur'an says, "After this, whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave chastisement" (2:178).
Unless it's for the infidel.
2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
2:216 Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom.
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: so an obvious misinerpretation happened somewhere.
On your part perhaps.
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: I'm pretty sure most of the mulims I know don't interpret the Qur'an the same was as the Jihadists.
Because they also embrace secular values. Most Muslims is Western countries also don't condone Sharia Law, but it doesn't mean it's not part of the Islamic doctrine. Just because those who kill in the name of Allah are small in number, it doesn't mean they're interpreting the book incorrectly. When a book calls for the killing of the unbeliever, it's pretty clear what message it's sending. Most people don't because it conflicts their own moral values - not ones dictated by a holy book.
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: I agree that fanatacism and closed-minded interpretaion without a system of balance is definately a recipe for disaster every time. Do you condemn all Muslims for the acts of the fanatics?
No. I condemn the religion for its doctrine. What people do as a result of that doctrine is a harmful byproduct.
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: 3-corruption - motives that lead to the the act of illegal or unlawful practices I guess.
Unlawful in what sense? You can be operating under God's Law and break the laws of the land, and vice versa. Therein lies my point. What side are you standing on to make the distinction of corruption?
(May 7, 2010 at 2:16 am)tackattack Wrote: 4-Thanks for the reading.. I'l close this out and talk about that later.. this post is long enough.
No prob.
1a- The only universally accepted doctrine of the different sects of Christianity is the Nicene Creed and I see nothing intolerant about
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father (the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; by whom all things were made; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
There's no condemnation or refusal or punishments other than the possible judgement day reference, which is kind of ambiguous. It seems like a simple statement of belief, not instructions on genocide for those who don't believe the same.
I agree that using the bible as your sole resource for mankind's most pertinent questions is disingenuous at worst, closed-minded and obstinant at best.cherry picking is also not a rrelious monopoly, it's human nature. I try and read within as much context as I can find and intake as many different viewpoints as possible before deciding anything, I'd like to hop that most those in my denomination do as well.
1b-Are you saying since I'm a christian that I'm partially to blame for the withhunts, and holy wars? That seems counter-intuitive to me. I can see where "historically" it could seem like a means of control and Catholicism might still reflect that today. To my knowledge there isn't that control in my denomination or church. I can, and have, walked away without any calls asking why I'm not at church or how's my walk speeched from the congregation. There was of course a little familial inquisition, but it was brief and unobtrusive.
I agree a crime is a crime regardless of your reasons (extreme or not). But primary repsonsibility vs associative responsibility, the latter has to have some limits. Otherwise you'd share some of the responsibility for ted bundy and hitler??
2-Martyrdom (as explained by my muslim friends) still must be done justly and proportionalte to the crime, not killing 100 people in a suicide run because your brother was shot by 1 infidel soldier. If your people are persecuted and the state of Islam is at war with the infidels then they would be declared at war and have the option to kill maime or exile the infidels.
I don't claim to have an excellent grasp of Muslim politics or beliefs.. I can't honestly say thought that reading those versus in the Qur'an (to include yours) that muslims condone mass murder or excessive martyrdom, which is backed up by the understanding of my muslim friends (from Sudan) who have read this post. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point I guess. If you fault the entire relgion for what a small number are doing, isn't that biasing you towards others of that religion, or are you saying you just want that religion abolished?
3-I believe in seperation of church and state therefore in regards to the legal sense of corruption I stand on the side of secular laws, not God's laws. If I break man's laws by following God's will I would expect to be punished by man's standards.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
May 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm (This post was last modified: May 7, 2010 at 12:23 pm by tavarish.)
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: 1a- The only universally accepted doctrine of the different sects of Christianity is the Nicene Creed and I see nothing intolerant about
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father (the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; By whom all things were made [both in heaven and on earth]; by whom all things were made; Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. from thence he shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Ghost. And in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spake by the prophets.
In one holy catholic and apostolic Church; we acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.
First, the Nicene Creed isn't accepted universally. Some denominations of evangelicals adopt a sola scriptura view, not to mention Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, who also believe in the Jesus story, but dismiss the Nicene Creed. Most Christians will say that they're not "one of us" however.
Second, the Nicene Creed is based on the scriptures - ("according to the Scriptures"), and I've outlined the issues with Christian doctrine.
Third, The Nicene Creed outlines exactly what I said. Jesus came to die FOR us and then he will judge us ultimately in order to test whether we can worship him for all of eternity. This isn't moral. This isn't tolerant. this is exactly the kind of sanctimonious garbage that the religion preaches on a daily basis, and people don't take issue with it because they believe the primary premise that we need to be saved of our unclean ways.
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: There's no condemnation or refusal or punishments other than the possible judgement day reference, which is kind of ambiguous. It seems like a simple statement of belief, not instructions on genocide for those who don't believe the same.
I just outlined the intolerance in the Nicene Creed, not to mention the fact that it defaults on the scriptures.
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: I agree that using the bible as your sole resource for mankind's most pertinent questions is disingenuous at worst, closed-minded and obstinant at best.cherry picking is also not a rrelious monopoly, it's human nature. I try and read within as much context as I can find and intake as many different viewpoints as possible before deciding anything, I'd like to hop that most those in my denomination do as well.
This is called cherry picking and rationalizing. You're taking the things in the Bible that work for you and applying them to your life. My point is if you're doing that by your own moral standards, you don't need the religion as a moral compass in the first place.
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: 1b-Are you saying since I'm a christian that I'm partially to blame for the withhunts, and holy wars? That seems counter-intuitive to me.
No. However the religious individuals who don't do their part to publicly denounce those who do ill in the name of their doctrine (ex: passive moderate Muslims) are just helping to perpetuate the violence.
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: I can see where "historically" it could seem like a means of control and Catholicism might still reflect that today. To my knowledge there isn't that control in my denomination or church.
There doesn't need to be. Christianity is the majority religion in the country and most of Western society. It doesn't need to get out of its own way to have influence - it already has it.
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: I can, and have, walked away without any calls asking why I'm not at church or how's my walk speeched from the congregation.
Were you expecting them to? I don't understand how this is at all relevant.
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: There was of course a little familial inquisition, but it was brief and unobtrusive.
I also don't know what a brief and unobtrusive familial inquisition is.
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: I agree a crime is a crime regardless of your reasons (extreme or not). But primary repsonsibility vs associative responsibility, the latter has to have some limits. Otherwise you'd share some of the responsibility for ted bundy and hitler??
You don't share responsibility, but you are accountable for the groups you buy into. If I was a Nazi, I would be charged with defending the doctrines of the party, based on previous transgressions. It doesn't mean I did anything, but it does hold me accountable for accepting some immoral ideologies.
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: 2-Martyrdom (as explained by my muslim friends) still must be done justly and proportionalte to the crime, not killing 100 people in a suicide run because your brother was shot by 1 infidel soldier.
So you're saying that the issue is proportion? WTF?
How is killing of innocents AT ALL just?
We're not talking about a court of law, this is unadulterated vigilantism.
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: If your people are persecuted and the state of Islam is at war with the infidels then they would be declared at war and have the option to kill maime or exile the infidels.
What exactly do you think a jihad is? It's a proclamation of war. These people are literally at war with much of Western society.
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't claim to have an excellent grasp of Muslim politics or beliefs.. I can't honestly say thought that reading those versus in the Qur'an (to include yours) that muslims condone mass murder or excessive martyrdom, which is backed up by the understanding of my muslim friends (from Sudan) who have read this post. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point I guess. If you fault the entire relgion for what a small number are doing, isn't that biasing you towards others of that religion, or are you saying you just want that religion abolished?
I'm faulting the religion on its doctrine. You can look at a call to racism and bigotry and realize it's detrimental to society without it ever having to be realized, even if others choose to interpret it differently or cherry pick the parts they don't like.
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: 3-I believe in seperation of church and state therefore in regards to the legal sense of corruption I stand on the side of secular laws, not God's laws. If I break man's laws by following God's will I would expect to be punished by man's standards.
So how would you go about demonstrating that religious people are necessarily less corrupt than those in politics by percentage?
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: 1a- The only universally accepted doctrine of the different sects of Christianity is the Nicene Creed and I see nothing intolerant about
First, the Nicene Creed isn't accepted universally. Some denominations of evangelicals adopt a sola scriptura view, not to mention Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons, who also believe in the Jesus story, but dismiss the Nicene Creed. Most Christians will say that they're not "one of us" however.
Second, the Nicene Creed is based on the scriptures - ("according to the Scriptures"), and I've outlined the issues with Christian doctrine.
Third, The Nicene Creed outlines exactly what I said. Jesus came to die FOR us and then he will judge us ultimately in order to test whether we can worship him for all of eternity. This isn't moral. This isn't tolerant. this is exactly the kind of sanctimonious garbage that the religion preaches on a daily basis, and people don't take issue with it because they believe the primary premise that we need to be saved of our unclean ways.
Ok first, Mormons (LDS) follow the book of Mormon and Jehovah's Witnesses use watchtower and other suppliments. I wouldn't classify them any different than muslims or jews in their recognition of Jesus, therefore not part of the Christ centered movement. I define Christians as those who follow the tenents of the universal creed, or at the very least follow the Bible and believe in Christ for salvation. I've never had a pentacostal, baptist, or other church try and convert me because they thought I wasn't a true Christian.. They obviously seperate themselves from Christianity, clearly in the case of Jehovah's witnesses.
Did I miss where you outlined problems with the Christian doctrine? I apologize if I did. Is it because it includes the Bible?
No your exact words were "Having the idea that someone will burn for eternity for believing something different than you" and "the audacity to say your book holds the answers to mankind's most pertinent questions " which is defferent than "Jesus came to die FOR us and then he will judge us ultimately in order to test whether we can worship him for all of eternity". It's still flawed in that Jesus is the one that allows us entry, leaving us the choice to enter or not and we worship God not Jesus. Also your original premise is flawed. It's that we are flawed and imperfect, not that saving from ourselves is in any way necessary.
(May 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm)tavarish Wrote:
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: There's no condemnation or refusal or punishments other than the possible judgement day reference, which is kind of ambiguous. It seems like a simple statement of belief, not instructions on genocide for those who don't believe the same.
I just outlined the intolerance in the Nicene Creed, not to mention the fact that it defaults on the scriptures.
Why is defaulting or being built from scripture an invalidator?
(May 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm)tavarish Wrote:
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: I agree that using the bible as your sole resource for mankind's most pertinent questions is disingenuous at worst, closed-minded and obstinant at best.cherry picking is also not a rrelious monopoly, it's human nature. I try and read within as much context as I can find and intake as many different viewpoints as possible before deciding anything, I'd like to hop that most those in my denomination do as well.
This is called cherry picking and rationalizing. You're taking the things in the Bible that work for you and applying them to your life. My point is if you're doing that by your own moral standards, you don't need the religion as a moral compass in the first place.
I thought it was caled research and introspection? I can see your point, but I think you're seeing it as a rationalization either because I'm not in touch with my true motives, or that religion isn't based on a deterministic explination?
(May 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm)tavarish Wrote:
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: I can see where "historically" it could seem like a means of control and Catholicism might still reflect that today. To my knowledge there isn't that control in my denomination or church.
There doesn't need to be. Christianity is the majority religion in the country and most of Western society. It doesn't need to get out of its own way to have influence - it already has it.
So a solution would be no one who chooses belief should be allowed in politics? When Christianity is made out to be a terrorist organization...we're all a product of our enviornment. I think the best step in the right direction would be less extremeism overall in society. Comparing modern Christianity to the level of the instigators of the dark ages.. seems a little unbalanced (not that yoou did this directly mind you just a point)
(May 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm)tavarish Wrote:
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: I agree a crime is a crime regardless of your reasons (extreme or not). But primary repsonsibility vs associative responsibility, the latter has to have some limits. Otherwise you'd share some of the responsibility for ted bundy and hitler??
You don't share responsibility, but you are accountable for the groups you buy into. If I was a Nazi, I would be charged with defending the doctrines of the party, based on previous transgressions. It doesn't mean I did anything, but it does hold me accountable for accepting some immoral ideologies.
if that's where the accountability stopped that would make sense, snf I could agree with that.
(May 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm)tavarish Wrote:
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: 2-Martyrdom (as explained by my muslim friends) still must be done justly and proportionalte to the crime, not killing 100 people in a suicide run because your brother was shot by 1 infidel soldier.
So you're saying that the issue is proportion? WTF?
How is killing of innocents AT ALL just?
We're not talking about a court of law, this is unadulterated vigilantism.
I'm not muslim nor do I agree with suicide bombings. Killing of innocents isn't just.
(May 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm)tavarish Wrote:
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: If your people are persecuted and the state of Islam is at war with the infidels then they would be declared at war and have the option to kill maime or exile the infidels.
What exactly do you think a jihad is? It's a proclamation of war. These people are literally at war with much of Western society.
I see jihad as this. I think we need more tolerance and indifference in the global community.
(May 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm)tavarish Wrote:
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: I don't claim to have an excellent grasp of Muslim politics or beliefs.. I can't honestly say thought that reading those versus in the Qur'an (to include yours) that muslims condone mass murder or excessive martyrdom, which is backed up by the understanding of my muslim friends (from Sudan) who have read this post. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this point I guess. If you fault the entire relgion for what a small number are doing, isn't that biasing you towards others of that religion, or are you saying you just want that religion abolished?
I'm faulting the religion on its doctrine. You can look at a call to racism and bigotry and realize it's detrimental to society without it ever having to be realized, even if others choose to interpret it differently or cherry pick the parts they don't like.
but racism is a personal choice, as is bigotry. I see that religion is too, but there aren't 4000 groups around the world that teach racism and bigotry as their main course. racism is treated (within the laws here) on an indvidual basis, not a group basis. I think I see your point though.
(May 7, 2010 at 12:15 pm)tavarish Wrote:
(May 7, 2010 at 10:28 am)tackattack Wrote: 3-I believe in seperation of church and state therefore in regards to the legal sense of corruption I stand on the side of secular laws, not God's laws. If I break man's laws by following God's will I would expect to be punished by man's standards.
So how would you go about demonstrating that religious people are necessarily less corrupt than those in politics by percentage?
well I guess we could poll some churches and extrapolate the percentage of people that are corrupt versus the total number polled. The same for politicians then compare the 2 by least common denominator?
I was using the knowledge of what I know about the members of the Church I go to and only 6- have criminal records (proving they have at some point been corrupt) that Iknow of I know of. Even if I said half the population of my church was t some point or is corrupt, I still think that's less than the house and senate combined. I don't know any lobbyists though to interview. It was just a perception I thought was pretty obvious. Nothing really relevant.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
The main problem I have with all the people who call themselves "Christians" is that none of them really follow the teachings of Jesus, but rather they follow Paul's spin on Jesus' teachings, a guy who never knew him.
"On Earth as it is in Heaven, the Cosmic Roots of the Bible" available on the Amazon.
More than half of the top 10 are highly secularized, Norway leads.)
Lots of people died at the hands of ruling bodies of the time, men seek wealth and power. That's not in the tenants of the nicene creed you brought up though. There have been tons of attrocties of lots of people over the centuries. Attributng them to all of religion as most atheists do would be like me saing all germans are genocidal maniacs becasue of hitler even today. Personal acccountability people. I agree however that more religious people should use it more as a philosophy and stop with the fanaticism, keep it out of the mundane.
