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!
Current time: April 25, 2024, 9:24 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
A doctrine of alienation
#21
RE: A doctrine of alienation
I don't really like strip clubs. I don't judge those who work there, nor pity them, except for those who took on that career out of the desperation of poverty (but then, what job can't be described that way?) or who are drug addicts getting sucked deeper into that world. The reason I don't like them is I see them for what they are: we have made sex and especially female nudity a taboo thing, in this Christian-influenced culture, and as such it produces a tantalizing effect on those who see it as the untouchable thing just out of reach. Me, I don't see the subject as taboo, and I don't get excited by women I am not actually intimate with; also, I see the women in the job as they really are, I know a few women who do that job, I've listened to what they told me, and so I don't fall for the fantasy. Therefore it is not a "temptation" to me.

Perhaps it is the fact that I don't see it as a "sin" that makes it neither appealing nor a threat to me. Likewise, the only thing about Christianity that bothers me is the threat that it represents to me, both in terms of attempts to legislate their beliefs into law and/or a position of dominance (see e.g. 1954, with the Pledge and the Motto, or the National Day of Prayer ceremonies), and in terms of their "doctrine of alienation", in which they teach their followers to turn off their brains to any outside influence (cult, much?) and to separate from anyone, even family and loved ones, who might tell them they're in that cult religion for poor reasons.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost

I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.

Reply
#22
RE: A doctrine of alienation
(September 18, 2015 at 12:57 pm)Rhythm Wrote: How does something like revelations square away with your attempts to avoid violent entertainment for fear of becoming callous or jaded, btw?  
Nit-pick, it's Revelation (singluar), not Revelations (plural). 1) There is a difference between the glorification of senseless violence and the actions of justice. 2) The end result of the Apocalypse starts in Chapter 21, with the birth of a new heaven and a new earth in which He will wipe the tears from our eyes and there will be no more mourning or death for those things will have passed away. It is a book of hope and joy.
Reply
#23
RE: A doctrine of alienation
A book of joy and hope.....filled with violence and degradation.  Sounds like a war movie, or a mob movie... Personally, I see no justice there, I see glorification of senseless acts of violence - even more..deification of senseless acts of violence (and not just there, throughout the entirety of the OT and NT).

Mind you, I love stories, I think that the biblical narrative would be utter garbage if it weren;t for all the blood and gore and sex, all the boot stomping, popcorn munching human drama...............I don't begrudge it that device, lol. I just wonder what it is that twists your panties when Dolph Lundgren strings villagers ears together, but somehow when David makes a belt of phillistine foreskin.....it's different, why one is to be avoided and the other is the exact opposite, to be poured over and studied and reread to no end - that one is unacceptable -even as entertainment-...while the other forms the foundational fabric of an acceptable religion. Seems like you're making special exceptions for a pet narrative. Seems hypocritical, even sanctimonious.....to me.

No one will be wiping any tears from my eyes, btw. I'll be crushed beneath the cruel boot of King Jesus and/or left to whither being tormented by the denziens of hell...or failing all of that - shuffled off into eternal solitary confinement.... all "justice" for the "crime" of not bending the knee and daring to be so uppity as to not believe that there's any -actual- justice (let alone hope or joy) in that narrative. This is something that wouldn't change if I saw the heavenly host descend and the narrative begin to unfold in the real world. That would only serve to calcify my opinion completely.

I'm not part of your in-group, or hadn't you heard? Wink
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#24
RE: A doctrine of alienation
(September 18, 2015 at 2:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No one will be wiping any tears from my eyes, btw.  I'll be crushed beneath the cruel boot of King Jesus and/or left to whither being tormented by the denziens of hell...or failing all of that - shuffled off into eternal solitary confinement....
Neither. You will be left outside the walls of the New Jerusalem with the rest of your kind.
Reply
#25
RE: A doctrine of alienation
(September 18, 2015 at 2:46 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Neither. You will be left outside the walls of the New Jerusalem with the rest of your kind.

Sweet!

Announcement to the rest of youz guyz: I'll be throwing an eternal infidels party at the South Gate, with these guys.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost

I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.

Reply
#26
RE: A doctrine of alienation
(September 18, 2015 at 2:46 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Neither. You will be left outside the walls of the New Jerusalem with the rest of your kind.

Oh...I see... "Hope and Joy"..Hallellujah!...lol?  Outside those walls....anything I ought to know before that happens....or is it gonna be another one of my thursdays?

In any case...regarding strings of ears and foreskins.....and which is to be avoided whilst the other worshipped, and why..again? I seem to have missed any actual discussion on that count.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#27
RE: A doctrine of alienation
(September 18, 2015 at 11:59 am)Rhythm Wrote: Seems your brother has traded one vice for another.  Sucks, but that's how the SA makes their nut.  Who dropped him off with those ghouls in the first place, or did he just float down the drain into their clutches?

My brother has been reliant upon living with one family member or another since he turned 18. He dropped out of diesel mechanic school merely months away from completion. Hasn't been able to hold jobs down for the same reason he quit school; he rage quits. Once his truck got repossessed he resorted to buying beer for underage kids where he lived and doing acid. My uncle gave him a second, third try (being unabl to afford mortgage on his own for each of those times), but he ended up just sleeping away his troubles till he ended up on the street. My mom and step mom got him in there, which is a feat considering Colorados overpopulation issues. My step mom used to work with the people there as a drug counselor. I don't quite expect my brother to do anything to improve from here--but maybe, maybe he will. I know it sounds pessimistic but I've spent years hoping and praying for my father. Without medical intervention they just keep goin down the drain despite my offers of support and resolution. To my father the only way I could help him in his eyes was to live in his fantasy world which I literally could no longer do with sound conscience for his and others well being.
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!

Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.

Dead wrong.  The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.

Quote:Some people deserve hell.

I say again:  No exceptions.  Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it.  As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.

[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]
Reply
#28
RE: A doctrine of alienation
(September 18, 2015 at 2:46 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:
(September 18, 2015 at 2:15 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No one will be wiping any tears from my eyes, btw.  I'll be crushed beneath the cruel boot of King Jesus and/or left to whither being tormented by the denziens of hell...or failing all of that - shuffled off into eternal solitary confinement....
Neither. You will be left outside the walls of the New Jerusalem with the rest of your kind.
Unless you are a Jew how do you expect to get in when there's no gate for you to enter the golden cube called New Jerusalem?  Hint:  the name means that it's only for Jews.    So if you're a Gentile it's the lake of fire for you.
Reply
#29
RE: A doctrine of alienation
(September 16, 2015 at 10:24 am)Drich Wrote:
(September 13, 2015 at 6:21 pm)Luckie Wrote:



Division does not have to mean hate. it simply means separation. For some, they must separate themselves from all contact from what they deem sinful influences. For others not so much. we are all different members of the same body,meaning we all have different functions. For your brother being new to all of this is 'young in the faith' Paul tells us those young in the faith need the milk of the word. Meaning we need out rules and boundries. He says this right after giving the example of those young in the faith who still think it is a sin to eat meat offered to idols. For Him who is mature in the faith says there is nothing wrong with eating the meat offered to idles because the idols represent nothing. But, for those who need 'spiritual milk' eating meat offered to idols is still a sin. for them Paul says he wouldn't eat any meat ever again, just so one would not stumble and compromise what they believe.

The bottom line being, Christianity is not about bondage to rules, it is freedom from them. A place like the salvation Army has to provide a 'milk' message because of the nature of the people they minister to. If/when your brother matures in his faith things will change.

(And no freedom from the law does not abolish the law, the law itself allows freedom from its rules through sacrifice.)

(September 18, 2015 at 11:53 am)Drich Wrote:
(September 18, 2015 at 12:39 am)Luckie Wrote:

You being there making him deal with his feelings for you and feeling for God will make him Seek a way to reconcile both. Whether he does this scripturally or whether he does this by turning from God is on him in the end (I can truly help if you want to offer a scriptural balance to him) I had to reconcile my own father after an 8 year silence between us. (His was/is a lot deeper than what you described.) Yet their is still freedom in our faith to reconcile if it is in our hearts to do so.

Sorry it's taken me some time to get back to this thread; it's the only one I follow, even. 

Anyways the above has been highlighted by me. :Smile

Why would having dinner with your sister and mother be considered a harmful influence, to be avoided? Even if I am a non believer (amazingly my mother is still)--he's the one going out of his way to control our interactions. As a matter of fact, he's going out of his way to ensure I don't even make it to the party and feel blame free about it. It's his way or the highway. My dad does the same thing; he won't have a conversation with me about politics or the bible unless it's mouth to mouth, won't accept letters (I've been given back ten years worth of Unopened birthday cards and christmas cards in past, just take a moment to imagine that), won't accept an email conversation, won't accept a phone call conversation. It has to be on his terms, when I am at my weakest (without the proof needed to refute his assertions), face to face with no referee to ensure a fair fight against his overbearing personality. Because that is what it becomes, with him. A fight. I grew up nodding like a good girl, crying when mom wouldn't/couldn't and they'd fight. Can you believe he held her hostage with that one verse about how she'll go to hell if she divorces him while he still breathes, whether he refuses to go to counseling or not?! For twenty years she was verbally abused, berated, and humiliated. All because a book says so  (and yes, he'd pick that book up and hold it in his hand when he told her how she should act). They divorced when I was 14.  At some point (17, I believe it was), I just decided that despite his mental illness I was going to do what I could to be a good daughter to him. So I let him talk. I'd listen, and not respond to obvious prods as best I could. I'd hug him even when he'd get himself so worked up at me that I wouldn't agree with him that gay people are pedophiles or mosques should be bombed, etc. and I'd hope that having at least one person in his life would make the difference between life and a noose. Well, he's chosen the slow noose and I can't be there for him for that, and my brother seems to be on an accelerated rate of mental illness than my father was. He's also inherited the book and is bound by its' words.

I don't want to fight. I don't want want to even talk about the bible, or their opinions on things we disagree about. For me they can believe what they want and I'll still try to enjoy their company. The feeling of being with them as people--not representatives of viewpoints-- is what I seek. Why must they run from such a simple thing as being themselves, and only themselves, with other people who love them? Why can't there just be peace? I feel like it's because they've built mental walls that cannot be brought down because then they'd remember that they used to have free wills, and thoughts of their own. They're afraid of the thought police but at the same time it's frightening to be alone. I see it time and time again in "believers" everywhere, of all denominations and religions. They have their comfort zone; they feel they know who they are in that zone, and can identify the corners of the field and where they are within it and it's completely in their control. Without their religious persona, they'd feel naked. For some, they would be naked; totally incompetent to make decisions on their own. Luckily I was able to take some of the good lessons from the bible and keep those, and priorly deciding to be good willed, I am still. They're more life lessons, than anything though. Do unto others as you'd have done to you, etc. Since I dropped Christianity altogether, I've tried things and failed at other things since then, but I'm still me. My opinions and decisions are my own. I consider myself a better me. I've lost a lot of baggage. Like ghosts? All believers I know constantly remark about how their houses are haunted, and push as far as they can any physical anomalies they notice. Instead of assuming there's something I can't see or touch or feel in the room with me, I don't fear anymore when the door blows the door shut. The wind, just blew, the door, shut. I have had to look at every issue and re-assess what I believe to be true or false and I do it as informed as possible. I'm a better person now because I'm no longer in conflict with what I was told I should believe vs what felt right in my heart. I considered myself a bad christian for not proselytizing, or being confrontational with those who obviously needed "saved". Or say, talking to an atheist (the first one I eventually married mind you). That wasn't me. I'm non confrontational in real life, and open minded to the core. These are only a few of many examples of the many contradictions I felt with the bible.


"It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (Luke 16:17 NAB)

How can you possibly reconcile the above verse, and what the OT says to do with regards to people like me, or LGBT, or a starving man who simply wants to eat some meat that was being wasted on an altar? Furthermore, how can you say that those young ones are wrong? Jesus made it pretty clear. What my brother believes is valid per the word of the bible--Actually per the word of god himself, Jesus Christ. What you believe about the bible being one thing to one person and another to another is true--but by what measure do you say your interpretation is the correct one? You can't pick one thing Jesus says to be truth and another to be sorta truth. Either it is or it isn't, because we aren't talking about a man here--we're talking about what you and others consider to be the literal words of god written down on paper in a book meant for believers to follow to the T with the threat of eternal damnation at stake.

Quote: Whether he does this scripturally or whether he does this by turning from God is on him in the end (I can truly help if you want to offer a scriptural balance to him) I had to reconcile my own father after an 8 year silence between us. (His was/is a lot deeper than what you described.) Yet their is still freedom in our faith to reconcile if it is in our hearts to do so.

I'll take you up on the first offer.

The bolded, I have trouble seeing how you will be able to pull off but I'm open to using any way possible to be able to see my brother. The last time I saw him he was very sick (strung out) and I sobbed uncontrollably afterwards, but I wouldn't take back having dropped in on his cave just to give him a hug, for the world. I live for hugs. 


Hope you're well, 
Luckie
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!

Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.

Dead wrong.  The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.

Quote:Some people deserve hell.

I say again:  No exceptions.  Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it.  As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.

[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]
Reply
#30
RE: A doctrine of alienation
(September 18, 2015 at 6:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote:
(September 18, 2015 at 2:46 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Neither. You will be left outside the walls of the New Jerusalem with the rest of your kind.

Oh...I see... "Hope and Joy"..Hallellujah!...lol?  Outside those walls....anything I ought to know before that happens....or is it gonna be another one of my thursdays?

In any case...regarding strings of ears and foreskins.....and which is to be avoided whilst the other worshipped, and why..again?  I seem to have missed any actual discussion on that count.

Not surprisingly, Chad doesn't want to talk about foreskin necklaces, Rhythm. Might stick with the strippers instead, at least they know what a Gstring is. Wink
If I were to create self aware beings knowing fully what they would do in their lifetimes, I sure wouldn't create a HELL for the majority of them to live in infinitely! That's not Love, that's sadistic. Therefore a truly loving god does not exist!

Quote:The sin is against an infinite being (God) unforgiven infinitely, therefore the punishment is infinite.

Dead wrong.  The actions of a finite being measured against an infinite one are infinitesimal and therefore merit infinitesimal punishment.

Quote:Some people deserve hell.

I say again:  No exceptions.  Punishment should be equal to the crime, not in excess of it.  As soon as the punishment is greater than the crime, the punisher is in the wrong.

[Image: tumblr_n1j4lmACk61qchtw3o1_500.gif]
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Trinity Doctrine: Help me out, Christians GrandizerII 169 18026 February 9, 2018 at 8:48 pm
Last Post: Amarok
  What's wrong with the doctrine of God's self-exisence?... dave4shmups 30 10570 November 6, 2010 at 11:03 am
Last Post: Captain Scarlet
  The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity? Sam 41 23439 September 12, 2009 at 2:44 am
Last Post: fr0d0



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)