-
An Atheist’s Utopia
-
I’m fine with a secular gov’t, that is sane, so I have no problem with your wishes.
I’m not sure what humanistic principles are, maybe we can talk about that some time.
My point is that you can’t call for Christian principles from government while simultaneously rejecting … Christian principles — that’s specious BS towards christians in any argument. It’s deception. It makes no sense on any level, even if you are genuinely talking about Christian principles, which also overwhelmingly not the case in these situations.-
I can and do heartily support the values of Jesus Christ, and hope to see those brought to fruition by citizens and leaders, and robustly reject the principles of modern Christian religion, which I and many great Christian thinkers past and present see as contrary to the former, and so I fail to see the hypocrisy that you point out, and I suspect it is based on a willfully too narrow construct or reading of your opponents ideas. And those principles I support are by no means limited to Jesus as a source.
-
or I should say, are not the exclusive provenance of Jesus.
-
Quote from uncleduke
I can and do heartily support the values of Jesus Christ, and hope to see those brought to fruition by citizens and leaders, and robustly reject the principles of modern Christian religion, which I and many great Christian thinkers past and present see as contrary to the former, and so I fail to see the hypocrisy that you point out, and I suspect it is based on a willfully too narrow construct or reading of your opponents ideas. And those principles I support are by no means limited to Jesus as a source.
How do you discern the “values of Jesus Christ”? From where you do receive them, understand them?
I expect that you are not even aware of how contradictory this may be, given your answer.
So please tell me, so I’m not narrowing my “opponents” (your word, not mine) or not considering an idea, which of course I’ll evaluate fairly.-
My point is that you can’t call for Christian principles from government while simultaneously rejecting … Christian principles —
What principles are we rejecting? What teachings of Jesus are we rejecting? You do realize it is possible to hold the same principles without being religious. The basic principles of humanity and justice transcend religion and Christianity and morality are not synonyms. What I find hypocritical is those who profess to be Christian that fail to hold up any tenets of their religion-
A Christian who speaks out against abortion, stem cell technology, gay marriage, premarital sex, (pick your favorite issue), is told that their religious philosophy has no place in the public discourse, but when the question of charity as it applies to the refugee crisis, or any other of the left’s favorite issues, they are being told that they are not acting in a Christian enough manner.
It’s like that old joke about thermoses, and how they keep hot drinks hot and cold drinks cold.
How the hell does it know when to do which?
By the way.. is anyone asking Muslims how they feel about the same issues?
I would be curious to know the Muslim position on abortion. It’s not one you hear mentioned/discussed at all. I am genuinely curious.
Do we know how they feel about gay marriage? Stem Cell Technology?
What does the Koran say about these things? We know how they feel about free speech.
Will their beliefs be honored when they do speak out…..?
Oh wait…
-
Quote from xrayer31
A Christian who speaks out against abortion, stem cell technology, gay marriage, premarital sex, (pick your favorite issue), is told that their religious philosophy has no place in the public discourse, but when the question of charity as it applies to the refugee crisis, or any other of the left’s favorite issues, they are being told that they are not acting in a Christian enough manner.
It’s like that old joke about thermoses, and how they keep hot drinks hot and cold drinks cold.
How the hell does it know when to do which?By the way.. is anyone asking Muslims how they feel about the same issues?
I would be curious to know the Muslim position on abortion. It’s not one you hear mentioned/discussed at all. I am genuinely curious.
Do we know how they feel about gay marriage? Stem Cell Technology?
What does the Koran say about these things? We know how they feel about free speech.
Will their beliefs be honored when they do speak out…..?
Oh wait…
Listening to religious opinions against abortion, stem cell, likening abortion to the Holocaust & Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards as equal to or worse than Mengelé, gay marriage (call it something else, just not marriage – OOOPS, just joking, it’s the same thing), premarital sex (BTW, Red States have more of an issue with out of wedlock pregnancies & divorce last I looked) is all I can recall over the decades since the 1960’s. When does it stop?
There is no stem cell research. A good alternative to abortion is to prevent pregnancy in the 1st place and to not stigmatize out of wedlock pregnancy (judging & shaming), provide ability to carry to term & give the child up without stigma, don’t insist it’s the woman’s responsibility & how she’s a whore if she engages in sex outside of marriage or birth control (see Rush Limbaugh), how having the child is “punishment” or the “just reward” for wayward living. “A woman’s role is as a vessel.” Why? Premarital sex is personal, you want to pass a law making premarital sex unlawful?
Rape? Women’s bodies have a way to prevent pregnancy in “genuine” rape.
And just because a woman – or girl – was raped doesn’t mean we should kill the innocent baby, the mother’s feelings be damned.
And where are the men who impregnated the woman? Why are they off the hook?
The list goes on. The Right needs to make itself available to discuss things & compromise & not engage in hyperbole. The religious claims have never stopped. You’ve lost a number of arguments because most people don’t support your rigid positions.
-
“yet you want to use central authorities to coerce your fellow man into doing things he does not wish to do, as an example”
Is God not a central authority and are his decrees along with threat of Hell not coercion? But I am glad to see you are starting to get the problem with ALL organized religion-
I learn about the principles of Jesus by reading, particularly things that can be as closely attributed to him by theological and linguistic historical study. Tried to get through Julicher on the parables. I like Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Get some from my dad, some from some Jesuit Padres I know. They are some of the informing sources of my secular humanist viewpoint.
-
Quote from uncleduke
I learn about the principles of Jesus by reading, particularly things that can be as closely attributed to him by theological and linguistic historical study. Tried to get through Julicher on the parables. I like Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Get some from my dad, some from some Jesuit Padres I know. They are some of the informing sources of my secular humanist viewpoint.
So you use your own standards for discerning Jesus Christ, history, language, what they mean by “The Church” etc. etc.
Congratulations, you’ve created your own tradition and thus religion, just like the 30,000 flavors of protestantism.-
Your God has a flavor preference?
-
Flavors…indeed. Reminds me of a joke/irreverent thought I had…
I always thought of Episcopalian as a kind of “Catholic Lite”. Same great saints, 33% less kneeling.
-
My point is that I cannot imagine the all-powerful deity of Christianity or Judaism or Islam being concerned with minor differences in rituals. “He” already seems to tolerate an assortment of religions, just the 3 listed above, so why should some minor differences in ritual or even interpretation matter? And cigar mentioned “flavors,” as if any 1 religion knew the truth, the whole truth and nothing but. That is each “flavor’s” bias and viewpoint but I can’t see any religion to “know” the truth when we can’t even wrap out little heads around normal everyday stuff & live together peacefully as it is.
If anything, how does “He” feel about being used as an excuse for murder and persecution? I can’t imagine “He” would be happy.
-
Being “concerned” is a anthropomorphism.
To be certain a lot of the bad taste you have about what you think is Christianity is heretical christian teaching mostly created in the medieval times and particularly in the 16th century. I don’t blame you for that.
Your answer also shows that you think that there is some “toleration” of God, which is off the mark too. It’s far greater than that, He “tolerates” free will, he even “tolerates” someone blaspheming His holy name now, because even such a person deserves the mercy to change from his ways and come to an understanding of the truth.
There will never be “peace” on earth in the way that people talk about it. The only peace that exists is to be one with who created us and shows it what it means to be human. The transcendental truth of Christianity turns out to be the opposite of what most are looking for — they seek glory and pleasure and fame in this world — but peace and beauty and truth and love come from suffering when people are doing the absolute worst things to you, even unto death.
That is how you free yourself from being enslaved, free yourself from the delusion of idolatry that you can do everything on your own.
That is the ancestral sin — that you don’t need God, that you can do it all on your own. -
You know the will of your God, cigar?
Very presumptuous as well as blasphemous.
-
Ok cigar, I’ll play just a little longer. So the words of The Nazarene, world class theologians, highly respected elders, and Jesuit trained PhD men of the cloth are insufficient sources for understanding the values of the Christ. It wasn’t a complete list, but be that as it may, please indulge me with your requisite sources for true understanding of those principles. You say I apply my own standards, well, they’re not entirely mine, they include and are informed by, but not limited to the standards of my parents, priests, world class theologians, and Jesus, insofar as I am hopefully humbly able to assimilate them. I haven’t been blessed with a divine intercession that I have recognized, that would give me a more definitive confident knowledge of the word and will of a divine creator, so for now I’m stuck with what I got. Do tell, what are your sources of understanding that are obviously, to you, so superior to mine?
-
And don’t use that easy old “you just created your own religion” schtick with me. Nothing I have said or done remotely resembles any accepted definition of or even loosely held idea of religion. A worldview is not a religion. Sentience and curiousity do not a religion make.
-
I know this is a bit tangential but this does illustrate in a fairly innocuous manner why I don’t support religious people making public decisions based on their personal religious outlook. This is trite on 1 level but its own triteness makes it stand out as remarkable.
It’s an older article in Variety but who are these people to make decisions for me about what I am allowed to see in public?
[link=http://variety.com/2015/film/news/jennifer-lawrence-hunger-games-posters-israel-mockingjay-1201645127/]http://variety.com/2015/f…mockingjay-1201645127/[/link]The Jennifer Lawrence-starred blockbuster will bow Thursday in Israel, as it will in nations across the globe, but in the run-up to the first screening of the The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 here, a handful of cities across the Jewish State have cut Lawrence herself out of the films posters.
Most Israeli cities have been treated to the standard poster of the final Hunger Games installment, featuring Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen posing with her bow and arrow. But in the ultra-Orthodox suburb of Bnei Brak, as well as in Israels capital city Jerusalem where several neighborhoods are heavily religious residents instead received a censored version of the poster, featuring only an image of the fiery crown.
Extremely religious versions of Judaism consider the female image to be licentious, and ultra-Orthodox newspapers, catalogues and advertisements routinely edit out photographs of females entirely. City posters in Bnei Brak and Jerusalem featuring images of women have been often been vandalized, and Bnei Brak specifically, the city municipality bans public images that could be deemed offensive to its religious population.
To them this is pornography. That their God would be offended by this poster? To me, that idea is just nuts. I’m not sure the ancients were so prudish. Maybe they were but that was 2,000+ years ago & I don’t want to live with that ancient attitude about women. Or their ancient attitudes in their religion. -
We got way off topic here and far too political, though I know everyone here loves that to one degree or another.
Maybe a redirect is in order? I’m not sure.
Oddly, Frumious just called me a blasphemer, especially strange since he’s not a believer, as far as I’m aware. More importantly, I never did. But more name calling can’t hurt, right Frumi? -
I don’t think you need to be religious to note that someone has blasphemed their own stated religious beliefs and as it stands the idolatry of Trump meets the definition of blasphemy against the Christian God
-
“Name calling?” Being insulted by being asked by an atheist if you are blaspheming because you are claiming to know the mind of your God is a bit odd, to say the least.
I am always cautious of people who “know” what their God wants or means. The New Testament is pretty clear about many things. few of which most Christians really believe. Trump is a perfect poster boy of this in his statements.
No cigar, I am not a believer. But that does not disqualify me from understanding religion.
And you will be thrilled to know I have a Yule tree at home. -
Ok, redirecting cigar (I’ll let you continue to ruminate about how and why your source(s) of understanding the values of Jesus are superior to mine, or, I guess, simply why mine are so arbitrary)…simple question, do you know any moral or ethically sound atheists?
-
Of course, but being “moral” doesn’t defeat death or corruption. Doing things for reasons that aren’t pure and good can still make you seem “moral”
As an aside, the question can be asked if any of us do anything self-lessly. It is lofty, and difficult, but it is indeed a challenge.
As for Frumious and Thor, when did I “claim to know the mind of God”?
Just another example of you guys making up stuff on the spot and editorializing. Please, point it out — or stop making things up. I’m not mad, I just don’t see how you guys do this over and over and feel OK about yourselves. -
Quote from Cigar
As an aside, the question can be asked if any of us do anything self-lessly. It is lofty, and difficult, but it is indeed a challenge.
Only in a High School class.
-
Crickets again regarding your claims.
C’Mon, maan! -
Quote from Cigar
[Of course, but being “moral” doesn’t defeat death or corruption. Doing things for reasons that aren’t pure and good can still make you seem “moral”]
Neither does magical thinking, but I suspect we’ll agree to disagree about that. The reason I posit the question is to understand where you think a moral atheist may derive a sense of ethics, or a moral code. The second sentence above seems a non sequitur to me. Are you implying that atheists only seem moral because the source of their behavior cannot be pure and good? I doubt thats what you mean. The same pseudomoral appearance that arises from impure ulterior motives can of course be seen throughout the history Christianity. So i just don’t get the connection.
And as for crickets…I’ll ask again why the various sources of edification regarding my understanding of the principles of Jesus seem to be written off by you as arbitrary, or only subjective as based on my own standards. You also havent answered the query regarding your source of understanding Jesus’ teaching. Should I not rely on priests and theologians? Does not all learning and understanding ultimately get filtered by the “standards” of the mind receiving the lesson. Even the learning of philosophical objectivity, or orthodox religious dogma must in the end be received in a subjective manner, in my estimation. -
And as long as I’m asking questions of someone with no shortage of boldly confident answers, let me ask this…what is it about human sacrifice that can absolve a people of sins?
-
Boldly confident of answers has nothing to do with it. Understanding the ancient christian teaching is another. I’m not sure you have the context to understand it.
If you have enough context to understand that Anselm’s position was heresy and innovation (and adopted by most westerners sadly), maybe you do. But you should research that first. -
well Anselm’s canonization would seem to argue forcefully and some would say irrefutably against his being heretic. And Aquinas, Kant, and first year logic class among others dispose of Anselm’s position to my satisfaction. How ancient of an understanding is sufficient for you to deign to answer simply put questions. Should it include the pre-Nicene period of robust heterogeneity as well as the Gnostics, or should it be limited to the politically rendered and therefore somewhat arbitrary othordoxy of Nicea and the later councils? I have some understanding of these things, but none of it illuminates the darkness of my inability to understand how human sacrifice absolves a people of sins.
As for whether God exists, I believe the current orthodox definition of God as the source of all creation would even allow me to profess that there is in fact an unknowable source of all creation which could conceivably construe me as a theist rather than an atheist, but that’s another tangent.
And the condescension of “oh I don’t know that you have the context to understand it” is a transparent adolescent counter born of insufficiency. -
You are entering the realm of the secret Ancient Mysteries, uncleduke.
Anselm had only 1 position? And it was both innovative & heresy. And you are an expert on “ancient Christian teaching,” cigar.
I am curious how Anselm is scientific. But climate science and scientists are not.
-
Anselm wasn’t canonized by the ancient christian church. I’m surprised you don’t know that. No scholastic or other modern philosopher needs to “dispose” of Anselm’s teaching because (and they are right in that it doesn’t make sense) it was never the ancient christian teaching.
My point of context is not how you took it. If you don’t practice christianity, how are you going to “know” it or understand it? That’s not the kind of faith it is. It’s not a mental faith. It is a lived one. That’s why the ancient christians called it “The Way.”
Frumious, hold off for a second. Your post doesn’t make any sense (especially the last line). I have no idea what you are talking about. And yes, I know the ancient christian church, because it still exists today. That you guys are still can’t figure that out is amusing, but shows a lot. -
Clearly some definition of terms is in order, though I know that will make it harder for you to make oblique or obscure comments, which you can then catch the respondent on if they don’t correctly guess the intentionally obfuscated meaning. So please define “ancient Christian church”. Also, please be explicit about what “Anselm’s position” refers to.
My understanding is that both the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches consider themselves the direct and continuous manifestation of the ancient church from the Apostolic and post Apostolic periods, through the Nicean and Holy Roman periods to the present. Obviously you must be referring to the pre medieval church at the very least, and in that sense obviously the “ancient church” didn’t canonize Anselm because he wasn’t yet born. Nevertheless, upon canonization in the twelfth century, it should be clearly understood that his position (not yet knowing exactly what position you refer to, I’ll assume it was his ontological proof of God) is de facto not heresy according to the dogma of those bodies that consider themselves the true and continuous church of Christ.
All that said, it remains unclear, deliberately so I suspect, why you reference him in the first place, and why understanding the “heresy and innovation” of his position provides context to understanding the values of the “ancient church”, or as in the first place, of Jesus.
All of the questions I’ve asked are sincere and not rhetorical. I am actually curious to know why my efforts to understand Christ are arbitrary, and I have honestly never heard a cogent explanation for why human sacrifice is the divine means by which sins are absolved, and not for lack of trying.
I wouldn’t for a minute argue that not living the religious aspect of the faith might not be an impediment to a most complete knowledge of that faith, but, having not received the gift of faith at this point in my life, am I fully incapable of understanding the tenets upon which the faith is based? That is a curious faith.
One more question you are free to ignore. Do you, and does Pope Francis understand the ancient church?
-
Or maybe it is an incurious faith?
-
Good post. We’re getting somewhere. And I believe you are sincere.
Anselm’s position is de facto not heresy if you are a Roman Catholic or one of their children, a protestant.
Only one church has not changed its doctrine and practice. It exists today, and claims to be the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic church. It is that church, what is now called the Eastern Orthodox Church, of which I am a member. -
Quote from uncleduke
Ok, redirecting cigar (I’ll let you continue to ruminate about how and why your source(s) of understanding the values of Jesus are superior to mine, or, I guess, simply why mine are so arbitrary)…simple question, do you know any moral or ethically sound atheists?
Aren’t most atheists morally and ethically superior to their religious counterparts? Doing the right thing through sound humanist principles rather than fear of eternal damnation and torment – is surely a more solid basis for decent human behavior………………
-
Quote from adopted canuck
Quote from uncleduke
Ok, redirecting cigar (I’ll let you continue to ruminate about how and why your source(s) of understanding the values of Jesus are superior to mine, or, I guess, simply why mine are so arbitrary)…simple question, do you know any moral or ethically sound atheists?
Aren’t most atheists morally and ethically superior to their religious counterparts? Doing the right thing through sound humanist principles rather than fear of eternal damnation and torment – is surely a more solid basis for decent human behavior………………
First of all, moral and ethic superiority in and of itself means nothing without God. You are smart canuck, you should realize this. It becomes ego or false in other ways when devoid of anything of its true meaning (truth, love and beauty) which is that it’s from God. Ethics and morals without God just mean a particular way of living no better or worse than any other, only to the extent that you can judge them as different, but on what authority do you judge? You’ll have a standard, which betrays the argument.
Second, the purpose of the christian life is to die to yourself and become more like Jesus Christ. As we are human, this will involve all sorts of struggle and human emotion and temptation. But it does not involve doing things to merit anything, that never has and never will be the true teaching. Only through our failings do we grow spiritually, and that is our purpose from now to eternity. But you can’t have growth without first failure AND recognition/repentance, which is that you discern what is true, fall, and get back up in order to gain wisdom as to what life is truly about. -
Au contraire cigar – the need to feel “chosen” , “special” and “saved” – are all deeply egotistical traits shown by most evangelical Christians. The “personal relationship with JC” – is surely an ego defense mechanism for those unable to accept their own mortality and limitations.
Decency and a moral ethical code have no religious requirements whatsoever. -
Ignore those passages that you don’t like but apply them to others with a vengeance. LOOK! LOOK AT ME!
Matthew 6:5And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward.
Matthew 6:7And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words.
Matthew 6:1-34Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. …
-
Dalai,
I’ve always said, that between the 10 commandments and the Golden Rule, we have some pretty good guidelines. The rest is detail, ritual and argument. -
Quote from adopted canuck
Decency and a moral ethical code have no religious requirements whatsoever.
+1
That is [i]the[/i] fundamental tenet of Secular Humanism. “Good without God”. -
This is only a “thing” for those who cannot imagine people being good without God and punishment as if the world is 2 dimensional. I don’t say that out of anything negative, it just is a world they often cannot conceive, why anyone would be good by choice without the fear of God. Why would anyone want to be good without punishment by God?
-
I’m not an “evangelical christian” and have said that many times on here, because they have distorted, bad teachings.
You don’t understand my point of view because you don’t understand what “good” really is, or means. I never said that adopted, dergon, or Frumi couldn’t be “good.”
That’s where you guys fail — you attribute more garbage to me, project so much on me, that is untrue. -
My last statement about not understanding why an unbeliever would “choose” to be good was not directly directed to you, cigar. I have had many conversations with believers including Roman Catholic priests who could not understand why someone would be/could be “good” without the fear and belief in God. It was a wall they could not climb emotionally; they knew me and did not think I was “bad” but emotionally they could not fathom it. To their way of thinking, without God’s laws & risks of punishment, I would choose to do whatever I wanted, damn the consequences. Without God one is completely selfish. They could not conceive someone choosing to behave otherwise.
That is limited thinking. It confirms their own straightjacket thinking and prejudices by limiting thinking outside of their own self-built box of limitations. It is self-confirming thinking, a closed loop of rationalizations. Without the stick of God and the carrot of Heaven, there is no reason to act selfless, ergo one does not act selfless.
-
I understand what you are saying. They have been improperly taught, sadly, but that still doesn’t mean that God is not real.
Being obedient to God is what we were made for, it is what it means to be truly human, and being truly human also means living forever. We can’t do this on our own, though many try in our age and throughout history. That’s the lie.
But yes, that’s a separate point from your recognition that they can’t conceive of someone choosing to do something selfless without “believing”. Again, though, for them it usually means some mental assent. The classic teaching on this, however, (and why the evangelicals are so silly and crazy) is that belief is not some psychological state, which is fallible. Belief, or “faith” — is really “faithfulness” a better, theological translation — which explains my position(s).
I think you can appreciate where I am coming from and how nuanced, but extremely important, teachings and historic practice are. Otherwise, you just make crap up as you go (ie the way of the protestants). -
Quote from Cigar
Being obedient to God is what we were made for, it is what it means to be truly human, and being truly human also means living forever. We can’t do this on our own, though many try in our age and throughout history. That’s the lie.
That is not dissimilar to what Islam teaches about giving your life over to Allah.
-
Of course, [christian] heresies have elements of the truth, always. No news there.
-
Quote from Cigar
Of course, [christian] heresies have elements of the truth, always. No news there.
As from Mithraism? Or Osiris and Horus? Or Dionysis? Krishna?
These stories are much older than 2,000 years. -
And they are significantly different than the Christian story/history.
You want them to be the same, so you don’t see how they are different. Just like you want Islam to not be the cause, but it is. -
The names are different, the religions are different, the stories not absolutely identical, and the times of occurrence, that makes it different.
Judaism might have borrowed the idea of angels from the Persians. Not “identical” but identical nevertheless.
-
Just stop writing, Frumi. It’s beyond embarrassing at this point.
You see confirmation wherever you look, even though there, in reality, is none. -
Something on the changing nature of a religion, how it changes over time as it adapts to culture and borrows influences.
What would a man of the 1st Century look like?
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/25/what-did-jesus-look-like/]https://www.washingtonpos…t-did-jesus-look-like/[/link]This fresco, painted on the wall of a third-century church in Dura Europus, Syria, shows the story of [link=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark+2%3A1-12&version=NRSV]Jesus healing the paralytic[/link]. Although it is difficult to see facial details, this Jesus has short hair and is clean-shaven.
Jesuss appearance reveals quite a lot about how portraits of him begin to function in early Christian communities. Jesus is wearing a garment typical of Roman men: a tunic with [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallium_%28Roman_cloak%29]pallium[/link]. Jesus is usually depicted, regardless of his facial features, as conforming to Roman expectations about how virtuous men appear.
The oldest surviving icon depicting Jesus comes from the sixth century CE (below). We can clearly see the emerging tradition of depicting Jesus as longer-haired, pale-skinned and bearded. Here he is also wearing the dark brown garment typically associated with monastic communities, illustrating the shifting values imbued in depictions of Jesus.
One of the main things we can take away from these early images of Jesus is that from the very earliest images, Jesuss appearance is imagined as matching up with societal expectations of what people ought to look like.It is no surprise that many contemporary depictions of Jesus show him as representing what is upheld by Western standards of normative (that is, culturally imposed and valued) male beauty.
Even religious beliefs change over time.[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/opinion/the-christmas-revolution.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…istmas-revolution.html[/link]
In his book A Brief History of Thought, the secular humanist and French philosopher Luc Ferry writes that in contrast with the Greek understanding of humanity, Christianity was to introduce the notion that humanity was fundamentally identical, that men were equal in dignity an unprecedented idea at the time, and one to which our world owes its entire democratic inheritance.
Indeed, Jesus Sermon on the Mount (blessed are the poor in spirit and the pure in heart, the meek and the merciful), his touching of lepers, and his association with outcasts and sinners were fundamentally at odds with the way the Greek and Roman worlds viewed life, where social status was everything.
We moderns assume that compassion for the poor and marginalized is natural and universal. But actually we think in this humanistic manner in large measure because of Christianity. What Christianity did, my friend the Rev. Karel Coppock once told me, is to transform our way of thinking about the poor and sick and create an entirely different cultural given.
Not parasites but people who need help and compassion.
Hope everyone had a Merry Christmas or Happy Holiday.
-
uncleduke, if you are still out there, you can PM me because it seems that you want to know about certain things, or are open to them
-
Cigar-
I am excited to stand by the efforts to make American (and the West) less imbued with Judeo-Christian beliefs. Lets face it, some of the brighter liberal posters on this thread fully recognize that the religiously derived Declaration of the Rights of Man and the United States self-image as the city upon a hill” is failed propaganda. This is because Judeo-Christian ethics, US constitution, and individual liberty has failed to ensure equality of outcomes. The perception of ‘safe” neighborhoods throughout America-do not benefit everybody all the time. Thus, Judeo-Christianity to us liberals needs to be doubted, supplanted and replaced by something else. The people who fight it the most on these threads (just look above) want to make an amoral transitional time for the West. What is really desire by these posters including myself is that a strong and more enriching religion such as Islam to fill the void.
Thats why there is scant little criticism of Islam by the posters most hateful of traditional society. My brothers and sisters including Dergon and Frumi feel the utmost contempt for the fact that America was shaped by Judeo-Christian beliefs. Western individualism to us now just feels like a ruse for certain Western businessmen to accumulate wealth and breed with as many physically attractive women as possible, like Donald Trump. It also allows for that all-encompassing sentimentality of “Santa Claus” to further reinforce the positives of Christianity, and at the same time stoke materialism through designated days of gift-exchanges. Not to mention that government certainly capitulated allowing “Christmas” to be a holiday!!
A lot of liberals like myself feel a sense of “Ive told you so” when these amazing brash and brave Islamists brothers and sisters strike out against the West. Western freedoms, such as going out to a Paris or Orlando club and safely enjoying a certain genre of music, sexual freedoms and women freely choosing what clothes to wear, are to us liberals necessary sacrifices because these and a numerous other ‘enlightened” expressions are all humiliating micro-aggressions against Islam. Being critical of Islam is preventative from it taking strong foothold throughout the West. Frumi, Dergon you’re absolutely right that the West needs “lose its religion”-and thats a good thing, despite the collateral damage the media somehow attaches to the religion of peace-Islam. By the recent tepid response of the West of the brave freedom fighters, Islamists rightly see the West as weakening and they are there to fill the void with a structured and authoritarian male-dominated religion that doesnt tolerate dissent.Take a look at the link and photo below. Its about Swedish women having to wear headscarfs throughout the country, or take on their own risk in being attacked. Its inspiring that a leftist country would so quickly assume the legal-cultural and religious Islamic rituals so fast!!
[link=http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160715/1043031851/sweden-headscarf-rape.html?utm_source=farkexchange]http://sputniknews.com/eu…tm_source=farkexchange[/link]
Simply put, we desire that Sharia law be substituted for the constitution.
-
Quote from Frumious
Your God has a flavor preference?
No, uncleduke does. [:)]
-
-
-
-
-
-
I’ll ask again, very simply (my last post, just above yours):
How do you discern the “values of Jesus Christ”? From where you do receive them, understand them?
You claim certain things in the name of Jesus Christ, the name above all names, yet you want to use central authorities to coerce your fellow man into doing things he does not wish to do, as an example. What’s more? You don’t hold life sacred, only your warped view of what life is. You can’t love your neighbor by coercing him to do your will. That is a major failing that I have seen you support.
I know that as a human being you can find the truth, though it may be difficult.
You define “humanity” and “justice” with your own will, however. If I ask, you won’t even define them for me, because they are so particular and whimsical to your particular person.
Yes, people can be “moral” and believe in nothing. The problem is that these attempts at morality mean ultimately nothing, and are just varying degrees of egoism.
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Thor
“yet you want to use central authorities to coerce your fellow man into doing things he does not wish to do, as an example”
Is God not a central authority and are his decrees along with threat of Hell not coercion? But I am glad to see you are starting to get the problem with ALL organized religion
Thor, again your lack of understanding of Christian history and theology shows itself. Perhaps you aren’t to blame because you’ve had bad or ignorant teachers.
First off, governments were humanly, always considered to be, and therefore fallible and passing. Christ himself said this, many times.
God doesn’t threaten anyone with hell. Rather, he desires that all are saved.
Laws are of this world. Christians are just sojourners here. They live in the world, but are not of the world. Yet another reason why saying central planning is good is totally unChristian. I’m aware that it happens, but I would never say that it is “Christian” because that is total heresy. -
So in reality the true Christianity is Cigar’s Christianity, all others are false idols.
But what would be most entertaining is how he squares Trump with the following statement
The transcendental truth of Christianity turns out to be the opposite of what most are looking for — they seek glory and pleasure and fame in this world — but peace and beauty and truth and love come from suffering when people are doing the absolute worst things to you, even unto death.
How does discriminating against any population square with this belief? If you advocate the turn the other cheek as a tenet of your religion why don’t you follow it? Perhaps you prefer company to good climate-
Christianity is kind of like minimum wage, it doesn’t evolve. Someone brought up stem cell research which I believe is against the current Christian doctrine. However, if the idea is your taking you queue from JC, how would he have known we’d be able to do do research on stem cells right now. God gave man free will. It’s not all compatible with current knowledge.
-
-
As for Frumious and Thor, when did I “claim to know the mind of God”?
Don’t remember saying that but you are the one on this board claiming to be the only one who understands Christianity which as far as I am concerned is tantamount to knowing the “mind of god” -
The Church that canonized Tsar Nicholas?
And you don’t explain “Anselm’s position.” He had more than a single position.-
I’m pretty sure you are aware of it, I’m talking about the “satisfaction” theory of atonement, in particular.
-
Yes. The idea is an old pagan idea of the God becoming man and then dying as a man in a sacrifice. Part of that is the God “learning” what it is to be Man with the frailties and temptations and weaknesses “of the flesh” of Man. IE, Jesus in the desert rejecting Satan’s temptations or Jesus’s fear of death as he is taken or Jesus asking why the Father has forsaken him.
That conflicts with the omnipotent God but religions are full of conflicts, why does God create suffering? Job. Etc.
Important to a believer but I find the questions interesting in the asking & how the religion handles the complexity of life.
-
Unfortunately you aren’t well versed in the historic christian teachings and you’ve seemed to conclude already that you know what they are.
Your characterizations are inaccurate. These conversations quickly become meaningless because they are like the ones that deal with people who talk about the “Lost Gospels” (gnostic ones) which a very famous orthodox theologian (someone you might learn something from said “They were never lost … and they were never of the Gospel.”
But if your premise is that they (gnostic heresies) were the truth and the existing, unchanged Gospel and its teaching of the good news (evangelion) were invented, how can we discuss? The problem for those in your position is, and has always been, By what authority do you claim these things?
The answer is that you don’t have authority. That’s not the case for me, because I didn’t invent things on the basis of my own whims.
-
I may have misread in that you are just characterizing Anselm and saying that his heresies are in fact wrong. Well, I agree.
But that’s the point, these aren’t the ancient christian teachings, they are innovations and you recognize them as being incorrect.
There are mysteries but they don’t conflict just because some people have bad teachings. I’ll admit, a lot do.-
You yourself don’t understand the origins. The basis of the Christ story had existed long before 2,000 years ago. Make of that what you will, I am not here to convert anyone one way or another.
Anselm had decided that the sacrifice of Jesus was not a sacrifice so much as the debt paid to God, changing the flavor somewhat of Jesus’s death and its meaning. Interesting to a believer perhaps but to me it is the equivalent of arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
These are not mysteries to me, only to believers like you.
-
Are you going unmedicated again, or do you just refuse to read what other people write? I have called Anselm a heretic. Did you forget to read that?
The basis of the Christ story didn’t exist in anywhere near the same context. Of course there are sacrifices and offerings to God pre-Christ, as that is a human interaction, clearly also peformed in Judaism, from which he is a descendant.
Your points are disjointed and odd. I’m wondering why you still contribute when the conversation was actually between uncleduke and me.-
Who should care that you think Anselm is a heretic or innovative? Means nothing.
-
Why are you posting here, then? I’m not sure what your point is.
-
Because someone has to argue against your hateful ignorance, others should not do it alone.
-
I think hateful and ignorant are grossly inaccurate characterizations, regardless of my strong disagreements with Cigar’s beliefs and opinions. The manner in which you decry as hateful another’s beliefs often comes across as hateful. I find a lot of right wing and religious opinions to in fact exhibit an element of hate, in my opinion. While Cigar’s positions are among the most reactionary I see, I suspect hate is not a feature.
-
I’ll get back to the satisfaction theory, the selection of the contributors to canonic gospel, and why my exploration of Jesus is somehow arbitrary, when I have more time. Slammed this week. Bailing out Ortho from iliac vein perf, add on venous thrombolysis, last middle school bball game, Socr practice, and unfinished Christmas shopping on call week has me behind.
-
Quote from uncleduke
I’ll get back to the satisfaction theory, the selection of the contributors to canonic gospel, and why my exploration of Jesus is somehow arbitrary, when I have more time. Slammed this week. Bailing out Ortho from iliac vein perf, add on venous thrombolysis, last middle school bball game, Socr practice, and unfinished Christmas shopping on call week has me behind.
Ok, to be continued, then. -
Quote from uncleduke
I think hateful and ignorant are grossly inaccurate characterizations, regardless of my strong disagreements with Cigar’s beliefs and opinions. The manner in which you decry as hateful another’s beliefs often comes across as hateful. I find a lot of right wing and religious opinions to in fact exhibit an element of hate, in my opinion. While Cigar’s positions are among the most reactionary I see, I suspect hate is not a feature.
That begs the question of what is the meaning of “hate” and “hate speech?” And is it in turn “hateful” to oppose such views?
The opinions expressed about Islam and what should be done – or at least considered – with Muslims are over the top even if they are common among cigar’s fellow reactionaries.
What does discriminately grouping a specific selection of people based on religion mean when that religion is constantly described as violent and criminal? What does it say when it is suggested that Muslims should register as Muslims with the government for no other purpose than to single them out, to separate them from everyone else?
Just a matter of opinion? Irresponsible, but no more?
That’s a fine line, IMO.
-
Quote from uncleduke
I think hateful and ignorant are grossly inaccurate characterizations, regardless of my strong disagreements with Cigar’s beliefs and opinions. The manner in which you decry as hateful another’s beliefs often comes across as hateful. I find a lot of right wing and religious opinions to in fact exhibit an element of hate, in my opinion. While Cigar’s positions are among the most reactionary I see, I suspect hate is not a feature.
It is not, thank you uncleduke. What’s funny is, and let’s take a human sidetrack here, I’m quite sure most of the people on this board would like me in person. Seriously. But this stuff is emotional, I get it. But on the other hand it really does cut the BS worry about “offending” people so it is valuable in that one can actually speak the truth.
How could I be a hateful person if I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ? Of course, I miss the mark often, but what I’ve done here (and what Frumious needs to understand in his inaccurate projections) is simply talk about the teachings that other people state and follow, which are readily verifiable NOW and throughout history. Yet, I’m the ignorant and hateful one? For pointing out the hateful teachings?
Only a person with a real sickness would label me as such, for pointing out how OTHERS teachings instill hate and violence. Please think about this and consider repenting, as it is a major error that is obvious at least to uncleduke (thank you again for standing up for what’s right, duke). -
Quote from Cigar
How could I be a hateful person if I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?
Are you?
I don’t recall any readings, whether in the New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostic, etc of any similar talk as you or Trump are declaring. That talk is definitely not Christian. Jesus helped those who were rejected or looked down upon by society. Christianity gave them hope. That is the primary lesson of Christianity, it’s not about being rewarded by God and Heaven for “being good.” -
How could I be a hateful person if I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?
Some things don’t even pass the laugh test. It is the delusion of religion…I follow what I think are the teachings of x religion therefore I am a good person. You certainly have never followed the teaching of “turn the other cheek”. Like all “religious” people you are quite selective in which parts you choose to believe and follow -
Quote from Thor
How could I be a hateful person if I follow the teachings of Jesus Christ?
Some things don’t even pass the laugh test. It is the delusion of religion…I follow what I think are the teachings of x religion therefore I am a good person. You certainly have never followed the teaching of “turn the other cheek”. Like all “religious” people you are quite selective in which parts you choose to believe and follow
Another statement devoid of logic. And ignorant of christianity. I never said I’m a good person. I don’t even know what that is. There is only one that is good (yes, Jesus said that, if you weren’t aware).
The Christian always gets insanely idiotic requirements of central planning from the liberal types because their brains are so hard wired on state control, that’s the only filter they see. They ignore the teachings and the fact that Christianity is not for theocratic rule, as the basis of its teachings recognize that all governments are flawed and man made, just like the humans that make them up.
I always wonder why that concept is so hard to understand. It’s like you just don’t want to believe it so you keep talking about other crap to pretend you didn’t hear it. It’s just weird.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Right’s version of Politically Correct, Christians and Muslims worship different Gods.
Thought there was supposed to be only 1. Shows you what I know.
It’s a matter of faith.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/12/16/do-muslims-and-christians-worship-the-same-god-college-suspends-professor-who-said-yes]https://www.washingtonpos…professor-who-said-yes[/link]
Wheaton College, a prominent evangelical school in Illinois, has placed a professor on administrative leave after she posted on Facebook that Muslims and Christians worship the same God.
The official school [link=http://www.wheaton.edu/Media-Center/Media-Relations/Statements/Wheaton-College-Statement-Regarding-Dr-Hawkins]statement[/link] Tuesday about associate professor of political science Larycia Hawkinss suspension said Wheaton professors should engage in and speak about public issues in ways that faithfully represent the Colleges evangelical Statement of Faith.
An omnipotent being has a preference about rituals of worship? Being a good moral person isn’t enough? -
I’ve heard it said that the problem with many Christians is that they’re not. Jesus taught a kinder, gentler form of Judaism, one a bit easier to follow than strict Orthodoxy. I’m not sure Jesus would be terribly pleased with the way Christianity has manifested through the years, but I can only speculate.
The Golden Rule probably sums up how to be a “good person” unless you are a masochist. -
Being obedient to God is what we were made for
And that is the fundamental difference between us.
You believe that is what we’re made for.
I don’t.
Your belief is no more valid than mine. It no more equates with morality and goodness than does my belief. It deserves no higher reverence and earns no higher place in the public sphere.
You are free to pursue your belief system and what you believe to be your purpose in life … just as long as that belief system does not infringe on my rights or the rights of others.-
Interesting TED talks by Leslie Hazelton who wrote, “[i]The First Muslim: The Story of Muhammad[/i],” about the Koran and about belief. She is an agnostic Jew.
[link=http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazelton_on_reading_the_koran]http://www.ted.com/talks/…n_on_reading_the_koran[/link]
[link=http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazleton_the_doubt_essential_to_faith]http://www.ted.com/talks/…ubt_essential_to_faith[/link]
-
-
Cigar, I will when I have some time. the convo on here just gets to be too much, you know? so I took a hiatus.
-
[url=http://icelandmag.visir.is/article/00-icelanders-25-years-or-younger-believe-god-created-world-new-poll-reveals] Poll: 0.0% of Icelanders below age 25 believe in Creationism[/url]
Iceland seems to be on its way to becoming an even more secular nation, according to a new poll. Less than half of Icelanders claim they are religious and more than 40% of young Icelanders identify as atheist. Remarkably the poll failed to find young Icelanders who accept the creation story of the Bible. 93.9% of Icelanders younger than 25 believed the world was created in the big bang, 6.1% either had no opinion or thought it had come into existence through some other means and 0.0% believed it had been created by God.
-
Didn’t Iceland throw their bankers in prison after the financial meltdown? Sounds like a place to checkout.
-
Yes they did among other things like deciding that the citizens were more important than the banks who threw the country into depression, the opposite of the US where the banks were rescued at the expense of the citizens and where the recession was blamed not on the banks but on the poor by many.
[link=http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2012-09-26/is-remedy-for-next-crisis-buried-in-iceland-view-correct-]http://www.bloombergview….-iceland-view-correct-[/link]
Few countries blew up more spectacularly than Iceland in the 2008 financial crisis. The local stock market plunged 90 percent; unemployment rose ninefold; inflation shot to more than 18 percent; the countrys biggest banks all failed.
Since then, Iceland has turned in a pretty impressive performance. It has repaid International Monetary Fund rescue loans ahead of schedule. Growth this year will be about 2.5 percent, better than most developed economies. Unemployment has fallen by half. In February, Fitch Ratings restored the countrys investment-grade status, approvingly citing its unorthodox crisis policy response.
You can say that again. Icelands approach was the polar opposite of the U.S. and Europe, which rescued their banks and did little to aid indebted homeowners. Although lessons drawn from Iceland, with just 320,000 people and an economy based on fishing, aluminum production and tourism, might not be readily transferable to bigger countries, its rebound suggests theres more than one way to recover from a financial meltdown.Nothing distinguishes Iceland as much as its aid to consumers. To homeowners with negative equity, the country offered write-offs that would wipe out debt above 110 percent of the property value. The government also provided means-tested subsidies to reduce mortgage-interest expenses: Those with lower earnings, less home equity and children were granted the most generous support.
In June 2010, the nations Supreme Court gave debtors another break: Bank loans that were indexed to foreign currencies were declared illegal. Because the Icelandic krona plunged 80 percent during the crisis, the cost of repaying foreign debt more than doubled. The ruling let consumers repay the banks as if the loans were in krona.These policies helped consumers erase debt equal to 13 percent of Icelands $14 billion economy.
In addition to easing consumer debt, Iceland reduced government spending and increased revenue by raising taxes and cutting deductions that mainly benefited the well-off, a path the U.S. might profitably emulate.So it does look like Iceland values intelligence.
-
Here in America we don’t value intelligence, get with the program.
-
Why does religion, coming out of the mouths of so many believers sound so scary and miserable and barren and unforgiving? So miserable, some priest who never heard of Bowie couldn’t resist spewing some hate in Bowie’s memory. Hate as a group exercise and belief.
[link=http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/15/a-vatican-blessing-for-david-bowie]http://takingnote.blogs.n…essing-for-david-bowie[/link]
It was mildly surprising to see a prominent Catholic Church official speak so warmly of a rock star. But it was fitting: Speaking well of the deceased is what decent people do.
But it was too much for some irritable Catholics. The Rev. George Rutler, a priest in Manhattan, wrote a response in the Catholic magazine Crisis. In it he complained about misplaced grief for a musician he called a paragon of degeneracy and vice.
In it, Father Rutler admits knowing not a thing of Bowies music or art: News of the death of David Bowie was the first time I knew that he had been alive.
He is upset that Cardinal Ravasi [link=https://twitter.com/CardRavasi/status/686466465784934400]tweeted[/link] a line from Bowies Space Oddity, that song about ground control and Major Tom: What I found most intimidating, and indeed frightening, was the assumption that others would recognize the reference.
Pope Francis has declared this a [link=http://www.hawaiicatholicherald.com/2015/03/27/pope-francis-announces-holy-year-of-mercy/]Holy Year of Mercy[/link], so I will not indulge too much further in repeating the turbid sentences of Father Rutler. But I do feel compelled to mention forgive me, Father that his essay is an illuminating example of a thing that has long puzzled me about some conservative Catholics who wear the faith so prominently on their sleeves and chasubles. Why, when they speak on faith and morals, are they so contemptuous of their fellow humans? If the Gospel message is love, and forgiveness for sinners, why does the message, coming from them, sound so wretched?
-
[link=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/02/04/rick-santorum-cant-name-any-marco-rubios-accomplishments/79820510/]http://www.usatoday.com/s…omplishments/79820510/[/link]
Bernie Sanders: “My spirituality is that we’re all in this together”
What a nice way to express the basic tenet of secular humanism.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Nothing is impossible, but it is very difficult for Eastern Christians to forget 1204 and the invasion of eastern christian lands with latin patriarchates, something that the easterners never did to the western church, and still exists to this day.
With all due respect, Roman Catholic theology and history is rife with all sorts of political and theological problems that deviate from the true, ancient faith.
Also, and quite frankly, if Kyril and Bartholomew have enough problems getting together to discuss things (which I suspect), schismatics like the RC church are just “brethren” until they admit the errors of their past. Another attempt at a feel good story. Sorry, but I have to be truthful about it.-
Why hold a thousand year grudge?
-
It’s not a grudge. It’s being honest about our histories and what changed, or didn’t.
If you forgive but the other party doesn’t change to reconcile the relationship, the forgiveness is just a one sided technicality.-
Tell me about it!
-
Not sure what you refer to, but just stating the truth/facts.
Life is about experience and relationships when it comes down to it, not pie-in-the-sky abstract ideas; those things can be useful to us, but only if they help us recuperate damaged relationships or strengthen existing ones …
That’s the essence of Christianity, actually, as well.
(-:-
Pew: [link=http://www.pewforum.org/2016/07/13/evangelicals-rally-to-trump-religious-nones-back-clinton/]Fewer Americans looking for strong religious belief in a President[/link]
[image]http://www.pewforum.org/files/2016/07/PF_2016.07.13_religionpolitics-00-03.png[/image]
The survey also shows that a declining share of Americans say they want a president with firm religious convictions. Today, just 62% of U.S. adults say it is important to them that the president have strong religious beliefs, down from 67% in 2012 and 72% in 2008. This change may partly reflect a coming to terms on the part of Republicans who have nominated a presidential candidate who is widely viewed as not particularly religious. Indeed, the share of Republicans who say it is important to have a president who has strong religious beliefs has ticked down 4 percentage points since the 2012 campaign.
But this decline among Republicans predates the nomination of Trump, having dropped 8 percentage points since 2008. And it mirrors changes among Democrats as well; while a larger share of Republicans (74%) than Democrats (53%) say it is important that a president have strong religious beliefs, declining shares of both groups hold this view.
This shift also reflects changes in the religious composition of the country. Compared with those who identify with a religion, the religiously unaffiliated segment of the population is both less desirous of a pious president and growing very rapidly. The growth of the religious nones also has contributed to a decline in the share of Americans who say they think churches and other houses of worship contribute significantly to solving important social problems.
-
[url=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/atheism-slur-american-life-dnc-emails-show-article-1.2725247]. DNC leaks reveals that atheism is still a slur in American political life[/url]
The inference {contained within the emails about Bernis Sanders religiosity}, of course, is that Americans are far more accepting of anyone of faith even a Jew! than someone who professes to have no faith. Marshall knew what he was doing: the holy truth of American politics is that you can’t swear to uphold the Constitution unless you believe in God.
Its 2016 roughly 225 years after the nation ratified the Bill of Rights mandate against state-sponsored religion and no one in public office will admit he or she is an atheist. As a result, identifying the godless is a bit of a parlor game in the non-believing community. Every time a politician alludes to being a humanist or a democratic secularist, our hearts beat a little faster. Of course, our hopes are almost immediately dashed because the pols typically backtrack faster than a lobster (which, by the way, moves faster backwards than forwards thanks to millions of years of evolution).
You may wonder why we atheists even care about all this stuff, but the DNC dirty tricks reveal anew why it all matters: atheists are bullied for their lack of faith. And its particularly ironic, given that the Founders all men of faith, by the way specifically wanted to separate the very private matter of belief from the very public matter of governance.
-
More accurately, they wanted no state religion established.
“Congress shall make no law … ”
Everyone has beliefs on life. These beliefs shape laws. That’s what governance is.
This is a critical distinction that shouldn’t be lazily thought of, or glossed over.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Dr. Fager, you are right that everyone has beliefs that shape their views, but there is a considerable difference between faith based beliefs and reason based beliefs.
-
Quote from uncleduke
Dr. ****er, you are right that everyone has beliefs that shape their views, but there is a considerable difference between faith based beliefs and reason based beliefs.
Of course [i][b]there can be[/b][/i].
The larger point is that (and I’ve said many times there are a lot of stupid religious beliefs) there are value judgments that are used, which means truth means something to everyone, and that is what one strives for — so how can you discern what’s right if it’s all up to the subjective whim of XYZ individual? This is where modernist and progressivist people are irrational, and nonsensical.
What’s more, there are a lot of beliefs that are claimed to be rational and “science based” that fulfill every bit as much of what is typically deemed “religious” as criteria.
-
-
Dr. Fager, you are right that everyone has beliefs that shape their views, but there is a considerable difference between faith based beliefs and reason based beliefs.
-
Quote from Frumious
Why does religion, coming out of the mouths of so many believers sound so scary and miserable and barren and unforgiving?Quote from Laidback Lib
I am excited to stand by the efforts to make American (and the West) less imbued with Judeo-Christian beliefs. Lets face it, some of the brighter liberal posters on this thread fully recognize that the religiously derived Declaration of the Rights of Man and the United States self-image as the city upon a hill” is failed propaganda. This is because Judeo-Christian ethics, US constitution, and individual liberty has failed to ensure equality of outcomes. The perception of ‘safe” neighborhoods throughout America-do not benefit everybody all the time. Thus, Judeo-Christianity to us liberals needs to be doubted, supplanted and replaced by something else. The people who fight it the most on these threads (just look above) want to make an amoral transitional time for the West. What is really desire by these posters including myself is that a strong and more enriching religion such as Islam to fill the void.
Thats why there is scant little criticism of Islam by the posters most hateful of traditional society. My brothers and sisters including Dergon and Frumi feel the utmost contempt for the fact that America was shaped by Judeo-Christian beliefs. Western individualism to us now just feels like a ruse for certain Western businessmen to accumulate wealth and breed with as many physically attractive women as possible, like Donald Trump. It also allows for that all-encompassing sentimentality of “Santa Claus” to further reinforce the positives of Christianity, and at the same time stoke materialism through designated days of gift-exchanges. Not to mention that government certainly capitulated allowing “Christmas” to be a holiday!!
A lot of liberals like myself feel a sense of “Ive told you so” when these amazing brash and brave Islamists brothers and sisters strike out against the West. Western freedoms, such as going out to a Paris or Orlando club and safely enjoying a certain genre of music, sexual freedoms and women freely choosing what clothes to wear, are to us liberals necessary sacrifices because these and a numerous other ‘enlightened” expressions are all humiliating micro-aggressions against Islam. Being critical of Islam is preventative from it taking strong foothold throughout the West. Frumi, Dergon you’re absolutely right that the West needs “lose its religion”-and thats a good thing, despite the collateral damage the media somehow attaches to the religion of peace-Islam. By the recent tepid response of the West of the brave freedom fighters, Islamists rightly see the West as weakening and they are there to fill the void with a structured and authoritarian male-dominated religion that doesnt tolerate dissent.Take a look at the link and photo below. Its about Swedish women having to wear headscarfs throughout the country, or take on their own risk in being attacked. Its inspiring that a leftist country would so quickly assume the legal-cultural and religious Islamic rituals so fast!!
[link=http://sputniknews.com/europe/20160715/1043031851/sweden-headscarf-rape.html?utm_source=farkexchange]http://sputniknews.com/eu…tm_source=farkexchange[/link]
Simply put, we desire that Sharia law be substituted for the constitution
Gosh ,sistah Frumi, I can feel the pain in your response and posts. Be cool, and our dream of income redistribution and the Islamic holiday calendar as law will come to fruition in our lifetimes. -
They are the brothers of chaos, Lib, that’s why they support murderers and killers, and those that support them to societal insurrection.
Like Lenin said, “Out of chaos, control.”
That’s why they hate the truth tellers so much. It stops, or at least delays for a while, their endgame of larger central gov’t control telling everyone what’s best for them, which enriches the few at the top.
Like in Cuba, “equal” and poor is a preferred outcome to the natural inequality of the world (reality), because they hate freedom (which produces and shows the inequality in man there is intrinsically).-
British actor/comedian Stephen Fry articulates one of the strongest arguments against the existence of a benevolent god in a very compelling way:
[link]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo[/link]-
The question that has bothered the writers of Job or the questions about the Holocaust, if God is all knowing and directs everything that happens then what does evil mean? God is gambling with Satin, like Aesop’s fable about who can make the man remove his coat? Or does evil exist because God is not involved in everything? Or because “he” “allows” Satan to cause mischief and evil? Back to original question, why? Yin/Yang? Balance of chaos and order? The “challenge” of living keeps us sharp? – We don’t need God’s decisions for that.
Life is simpler being an atheist, sh1te happens & we try to prevent it. But often we cause it on the other hand, directly and indirectly. -
Quote from dergon
British actor/comedian Stephen Fry articulates one of the strongest arguments against the existence of a benevolent god in a very compelling way:
[link=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-suvkwNYSQo[/link]
That is the most ignorant, stupid answer, and the least in touch with reality I have ever seen.
He condemns himself in it, which is even worse. It is sick, but he possibly was taught sick things as well, which is maybe why he is as unhealthy as he is in his thought as he presents there.
-
-
-
[i]The Atlantic[/i]: [url=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/oasis-secular-groups/499148/?utm_source=atlfb] Secular social groups increase, providing the non-religious with community and acceptance. The rise of “communal humanism”[/url]
Oasis started in the summer of 2012, when Mike Aus, a former pastor, began meeting with friends in Houston who, like him, shared an aversion to religious dogma, but were drawn to the social benefits of organized religious life. They wanted the solidarity of meeting with like-minded people. They wanted to gather weekly to hear good music and thought-provoking talks. Moreover, they wanted to be part of a community in which being secular wasnt a bad thing: less of an absence or loss than a positive outlook on life. They had no grand plans to start a movement, the 52-year-old Aus told me recently. What they had was a collective sense of need.
…
This remixed form of congregational life may have limited appeal. It may be that many nonreligious Americans dont feel a need for the kind of collective practice Oasis representsthat they may be content living without these organized structures. According to Zuckerman, while affirmatively secular groups may be proliferating in the U.S., they will likely neither match nor approach the level of communal engagement one finds among the religious. A desire for autonomy, among other things, may supersede a desire for membership in a collective group. And certain nonreligious communities, Zuckerman wrote, may prove too religious-like in form, structure, and style to attract most secular people.
But Oasis appears to be exactly what some people need. The Sunday after Alton Sterling and Philando Castile were killed by police officers in Baton Rouge and St. Paul, and five police officers were shot by a sniper during a protest in Dallas, Timothy Leyrson, 33, showed up at Kansas City Oasis for the first time. He wore black Dickies trousers and a paisley bowtie, and sat on the corner of a bleacher near the door. After high school, hed quit going to his Assemblies of God church, he told me. I asked what had brought him here. …Everything in the news, he saidthe hostility, the racial violence. After that, he said, he needed some kind of positive community experience. And this seemed like a good place to start.
