NationStates Jolt Archive

the church and organised religion has for two thousand years twisted and turned itself into the single most murderous political idea on the planet. the muslim and christian religions have preached war on their enemies the whole time from the burning of witches, and the execution of blasphemers to the massacre of infidels. who were really evil during the death fuelled dark ages the witches who were being burned or the wierdo christians who were cheering as the flesh was burnt off the bones of their fellow human. the religious propaganda rolls on though with the ridiculous popularity of the bizarre 'da vinci code'. :upyours:
ask yourself, will i burn in hell
then write it down and cast it in the well
there they are the mob that cry for blood
to twist the tale into fire wood
fan the flames with a little lie
then turn your cheek until the fire dies
the skin it peels, like the truth,away
what it was i will never say
QofST

I'm sorry. Is there a point to this?

Lol, the spanissh inquisition!

Lol, the spanissh inquisition!

Strangely, I expected that.

I'm sorry. Is there a point to this?
no its just me railing againts right wing conservative christians and religion in general sorry to have bothered you:upyours:

I'm sorry. Is there a point to this?
Of course there is! Insulting religious types. :cool:

the church and organised religion has for two thousand years twisted and turned itself into the single most murderous political idea on the planet. the muslim and christian religions have preached war on their enemies the whole time from the burning of witches, and the execution of blasphemers to the massacre of infidels. who were really evil during the death fuelled dark ages the witches who were being burned or the wierdo christians who were cheering as the flesh was burnt off the bones of their fellow human. the religious propaganda rolls on though with the ridiculous popularity of the bizarre 'da vinci code'. :upyours:

Nice rant. I recommend a punching bag and a blog if you need to express some anger. People will actually try to debate you here, and it's hard to do that properly when you're angry.

no its just me railing againts right wing conservative christians and religion in general sorry to have bothered you:upyours:

Who said it bothered me? I love it when people abuse christians for no particularly good reason.

Strangely, I expected that.
No. NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!

No. NO ONE expects the Spanish Inquisition!

:D

Strangely, I expected that.
:fluffle:

ron howard's mediocre movie has put you on a rant?

not really angry just tired of it, saw an article in the paper about how cool the 'opus dei' was in real life and how they helped people and how good everyone involved was all this talk of,...... where was i, what a boring thread.

Although I agree with you, you need to form more coherent arguments here, and approach prepared and with a level head. Otherwise, the Christian Coalition will crucify you. (irony intended)

I agree that if you just wish to vent a blog is a more appropriate setting.

And using this : :upyours: makes you seem really childish. It is one step below a gun smilie.

the church and organised religion has for two thousand years twisted and turned itself into the single most murderous political idea on the planet. the muslim and christian religions have preached war on their enemies the whole time from the burning of witches, and the execution of blasphemers to the massacre of infidels. who were really evil during the death fuelled dark ages the witches who were being burned or the wierdo christians who were cheering as the flesh was burnt off the bones of their fellow human. the religious propaganda rolls on though with the ridiculous popularity of the bizarre 'da vinci code'. :upyours:

Dear Stereo violence. Do you expect that the people were better, before the church existed in these counties? When people use religion to do war do you think the religion actually taught that? However consider the Muslim Christian war, neither the Christians scriptures taught to kill their enemies, nor the Koran taught to kill the Christians as far as I know. The Koran even spoke with respect from the Christians and the Jews. People of the book were they called. They even should turn to them when they had questions. However, as we see people do not allways tend to hold to higher morality. Just because there was war in the name of religion, does not mean that there was war because of religion nor does it mean that every thing was quite peaceful and better before the emergence of Christianity and Islam in these countries. In fact there were even wars before Christianity and Islam...
Have a nice sunday :)

Doesn't the Da Vinci Code dispute the purity of Jesus Christ...? The whole wife and kids thing...?

And it's not just the religious types that are bringing death and judgement to the world, people like you do it as well. Where exactly do you get off passing your hatred and judgement on "right wing conservative christians and religion in general"? What's with the holier than thou attitude?

And see, here I am passing judgement myself, and also adopting a holier than thou attitude, but that's not the issue at bat.

yes, religious types have persecuted, judged, and murdered thousand, millions of people, but so does everyone else.

The church, and any other religious affliations are just the easiest to attack because they have the most well-known histories. Not to mention the largest group of people opposing them.

Your drivel is nothing new, just a bit of entertainment on how ill-informed and and your degree of conformity to the "lets hate this stereotype today" group.

EDIT: By the way I am a Libertarian, I believe that no religion is completely correct, but believe that some elements of them are correct. So don't write me off as one of these "right-wing conservatives".

People go off on this all the time...
It's useless.

what can i say im a child who doesnt know what hes talking about thanks for the pointers guys sunday just stirs hateful emotions in me after being forced to go to church for 15 years while growing up and watching people carry on with their strange rituals it had a negative affect. i hope you can go walk on water and raise the dead so we can have a real life horror movie and cast out some demons lets have some of them flying around as well. and why not some strange seven headed beast as well. :D

what can i say im a child who doesnt know what hes talking about thanks for the pointers guys sunday just stirs hateful emotions in me after being forced to go to church for 15 years while growing up and watching people carry on with their strange rituals it had a negative affect. i hope you can go walk on water and raise the dead so we can have a real life horror movie and cast out some demons lets have some of them flying around as well. and why not some strange seven headed beast as well. :D
Please age a few years and then return. Or learn to capitalize.

Dear Stereo violence. Do you expect that the people were better, before the church existed in these counties? When people use religion to do war do you think the religion actually taught that? However consider the Muslim Christian war, neither the Christians scriptures taught to kill their enemies, nor the Koran taught to kill the Christians as far as I know. The Koran even spoke with respect from the Christians and the Jews. People of the book were they called. They even should turn to them when they had questions. However, as we see people do not allways tend to hold to higher morality. Just because there was war in the name of religion, does not mean that was war because of religion nor does it mean that it was worse than without the bigger religions. Have a nice sunday :)

Not to be argumentative (ahaha), but there are very clearly wars and very brutal deaths in the Bible that "God" seemed to sanction through his prophets and his son and his son's followers. Not defending the pointless railing against religion, but the religions actually do preach a lot of violent aspects.
Besides which, who says that any religion has a right to try and convert people through missionaries? (This in regard to the very first question of your post, however rhetorical it may be.) I, for one, consider that to be the worst kind of encroachment there is. As an Atheist, I really hate being preached at...even at work! I worked with a pair of rather zealous young Christians...and that's fine. More power to you, if you want to believe in what you believe, but I have just as much right to refute it. They sing hymns while working, even shouting "amen" and "hallelujah" at each other...when I asked them to stop, they immediately began harrassing me about how I needed Christ. My supervisor said it was okay, that they were not bothering me, nor affecting my job. The supervisor above him said the same. I finally quit because of it, and could have easily pressed charges, but why? Revenge? Naw. I'm not that vengeful.

Again, not attacking. Just stating my side of things. Heh.

Doesn't the Da Vinci Code dispute the purity of Jesus Christ...? The whole wife and kids thing...?

And it's not just the religious types that are bringing death and judgement to the world, people like you do it as well. Where exactly do you get off passing your hatred and judgement on "right wing conservative christians and religion in general"? What's with the holier than thou attitude?

And see, here I am passing judgement myself, and also adopting a holier than thou attitude, but that's not the issue at bat.

yes, religious types have persecuted, judged, and murdered thousand, millions of people, but so does everyone else.

The church, and any other religious affliations are just the easiest to attack because they have the most well-known histories. Not to mention the largest group of people opposing them.

Your drivel is nothing new, just a bit of entertainment on how ill-informed and and your degree of conformity to the "lets hate this stereotype today" group.

EDIT: By the way I am a Libertarian, I believe that no religion is completely correct, but believe that some elements of them are correct. So don't write me off as one of these "right-wing conservatives".

so whats your point. i havent killed any christians and i dont want to. degree of conformity, what are you on about? lets hate this stereotype today, damn right. i am not ill informed i have a sound knowledge. all the things i ranted about happened did they not. my parents are ministers. i dont agree with them but i dont condemn them but wierdly enough they pray for me because i am a 'sinner'.

the religious propaganda rolls on though with the ridiculous popularity of the bizarre 'da vinci code'. :upyours:
ask yourself, will i burn in hell
then write it down and cast it in the well
there they are the mob that cry for blood
to twist the tale into fire wood
fan the flames with a little lie
then turn your cheek until the fire dies
the skin it peels, like the truth,away
what it was i will never say
QofST

Oh yeah, I agree, I do not like the Da Vinci code too :-) It is interesting that you and the more conserative Christians speak of the Da Vinci Code as propagating propaganda :-) Although I heard it is quite interesting to read and the author is quite good in combining some few historical data with fiction that one might think it is actually really a possible truth..however wrong some things might be..

so whats your point. i havent killed any christians and i dont want to. degree of conformity, what are you on about? lets hate this stereotype today, damn right. i am not ill informed i have a sound knowledge. all the things i ranted about happened did they not. my parents are ministers. i dont agree with them but i dont condemn them but wierdly enough they pray for me because i am a 'sinner'.

At least your parents seem to love you..., even if you don't agree..

Oh yeah, I agree, I do not like the Da Vinci code too :-) It is interesting that you and the more conserative Christians speak of the Da Vinci Code as propagating propaganda :-) Although I heard it is quite interesting to read and the author is quite good in combining some few historical data with fiction that one might think it is actually really a possible truth..however wrong some things might be..

Ehh, the Da Vinci Code tries too hard to be a page-turner. It's all about shock and "suspense" that is way too predictable. I tried to read it and got bored.

And the "conservative Christians" speak of it as propaganda, but then you have the ones like those that live by me...they're hilarious. They spout off about how it is "okay to read it, so long as you know it's fiction"...covering their own tracks. It's great.

Sigh...

Unsupported and stereotypical rants are so much more entertaining when they are coherent.

WHERE ARE YOU SKAPENROE!?

so whats your point. i havent killed any christians and i dont want to. degree of conformity, what are you on about? lets hate this stereotype today, damn right. i am not ill informed i have a sound knowledge. all the things i ranted about happened did they not. my parents are ministers. i dont agree with them but i dont condemn them but wierdly enough they pray for me because i am a 'sinner'.

I do not dispute the fact that the church or any other religious group has done despicable acts, I am merely informing you that this is typical and your presentation of it was laughable at best. You want to rant about some group for mass murder? Well than be prepared to hate all of humanity because not a single culture is exempt from it.

The point I am pushing is that yes, the religious fanatics have done some horrible things, but so has everyone else. Why don't you rant about some other group rather than hopping on the bandwagon...? People are killed in vast quantities over more stupid things than organized religion, such as which tribe your parents, or even grandparents once held alligiance to.

More to the point, yes, congrats you hate organized religion, now how about doing research into every group that has commited acts of genocide, or ethnic cleansing and you'll realize that the religious massacres are laughable by comparison.

Humans have a tendency to kill each other. This seems closely connected to human's tendency to act irrationally. I think life would be better if we were more rational and killed each other less. I think this applies to irrational acts whatever their motivation, be they religious, political, racial or other.

Having said that, people rarely act out of just one motivation. For exmple Nazis could point to religious, political and racial reasons for committing mass murder. The core problem is irrationality.

Dear Stereo violence. Do you expect that the people were better, before the church existed in these counties? When people use religion to do war do you think the religion actually taught that? However consider the Muslim Christian war, neither the Christians scriptures taught to kill their enemies, nor the Koran taught to kill the Christians as far as I know. The Koran even spoke with respect from the Christians and the Jews. People of the book were they called. They even should turn to them when they had questions. However, as we see people do not allways tend to hold to higher morality. Just because there was war in the name of religion, does not mean that there was war because of religion nor does it mean that every thing was quite peaceful and better before the emergence of Christianity and Islam in these countries. In fact there were even wars before Christianity and Islam...
Have a nice sunday :)

I totally concur. In reality, religion has been perverted throughout history in order for political gains. That doesn't make religion bad, it makes the people who perverted it bad. Religion, helps create a stable society that can optimally function by promoting good values. True, some people can get along pretty good without it.(ie athiests have a lower divorce rate than evangelical Christians) However, society as a whole needs it.

You say how muslims and christians killed people. That's true, however, in the global span of history, their wars, and killings are so small they can't really stand up to anything others have done. At this time i wish to remind you of the true killers. Stalin Killed 22 million people, more than anyother person in history, and for that matter, more than every war in history except WWII. And our buddy stalin wasn't a christian, or a muslim. But a left-wing atheist. Hmmmm. That's a big number. Ohhhh. Lets not forget the Fuhrer. yes hitler was born a christian, but by the time he was the fuhrer, he had turned on christianity, attacking christianity in several of his speaches. And, plus he killed 12 million people, once again, that's more than every war, execpt WWII. Oh, plus he started WWII, so we could add the 55 million people who died to that. So two atheists killed 89 million people. While the modern 5-or-so billion people who practice a religion today, have done considerably less.So before you attack Right-wing religious people, just remember the two atheists who killed 89 million people. Thank you. And have a very wonderful Sunday. God bless.

Not to be argumentative (ahaha), but there are very clearly wars and very brutal deaths in the Bible that "God" seemed to sanction through his prophets and his son and his son's followers. Not defending the pointless railing against religion, but the religions actually do preach a lot of violent aspects.
Besides which, who says that any religion has a right to try and convert people through missionaries? (This in regard to the very first question of your post, however rhetorical it may be.) I, for one, consider that to be the worst kind of encroachment there is. As an Atheist, I really hate being preached at...even at work! I worked with a pair of rather zealous young Christians...and that's fine. More power to you, if you want to believe in what you believe, but I have just as much right to refute it. They sing hymns while working, even shouting "amen" and "hallelujah" at each other...when I asked them to stop, they immediately began harrassing me about how I needed Christ. My supervisor said it was okay, that they were not bothering me, nor affecting my job. The supervisor above him said the same. I finally quit because of it, and could have easily pressed charges, but why? Revenge? Naw. I'm not that vengeful.

Again, not attacking. Just stating my side of things. Heh.

Yeah you are refering to the Old Testament. Yeah, there were some wars, degreed by God, in fact as punishment for the other nations. I agree that does not seem to be a loving God. However I guess he had intentions we not allways can see. Certainly that is not an argument for you, but the fact is, that we are not living anymore in Old Testament times. With the coming of the Messiah Jesus things changed. The gospel clearly teaches to love your enemies and to bless those who curse you.. That does not really sound as that a Christian should take his gun shoot all the pagans.
Oh, if you do not want to hear, I wont force you to listen, I wont force you to read this post. In fact the missionaries I know ( And I know a lot) are not forcing people to listen. If you don't want to listen you do not have to. So it is even a free choice from you. So do not bother about missionaries. Why not tell those who in fact want to listen? What is wrong with that? Naturally you have the right to refute me, you can do that if you want, I do not bother at all.. Hmm, I myself have worked in a company as a Christian and was a witness, but actually I was not shouting all the time hallelulja and Amen to my Christian workmate. Some really liked to talk to me about Christianity I did not force them to do so... I would consider that as not very Christian to anger you with that if I know it is bothering you. So I am sorry that those Christians have bothered you.

Good Lord...

Ehh, the Da Vinci Code tries too hard to be a page-turner. It's all about shock and "suspense" that is way too predictable. I tried to read it and got bored.

And the "conservative Christians" speak of it as propaganda, but then you have the ones like those that live by me...they're hilarious. They spout off about how it is "okay to read it, so long as you know it's fiction"...covering their own tracks. It's great.

Actually I have not read it my self, I just have heard from a few people who even do not like the contents who think it is well written.. So I do not know exactly in my opinion if it is good or bad. However, some people seem to believe some fictional things are history.. But luckily not everybody

Yeah you are refering to the Old Testament. Yeah, there were some wars, degreed by God, in fact as punishment for the other nations. I agree that does not seem to be a loving God. However I guess he had intentions we not allways can see. Certainly that is not an argument for you, but the fact is, that we are not living anymore in Old Testament times. With the coming of the Messiah Jesus things changed. The gospel clearly teaches to love your enemies and to bless those who curse you.. That does not really sound as that a Christian should take his gun shoot all the pagans.
Oh, if you do not want to hear, I wont force you to listen, I wont force you to read this post. In fact the missionaries I know ( And I know a lot) are not forcing people to listen. If you don't want to listen you do not have to. So it is even a free choice from you. So do not bother about missionaries. Why not tell those who in fact want to listen? What is wrong with that? Naturally you have the right to refute me, you can do that if you want, I do not bother at all.. Hmm, I myself have worked in a company as a Christian and was a witness, but actually I was not shouting all the time hallelulja and Amen to my Christian workmate. Some really liked to talk to me about Christianity I did not force them to do so... I would consider that as not very Christian to anger you with that if I know it is bothering you. So I am sorry that those Christians have bothered you.

Oh, I know no one forces me. I read things like this out of an interest for others' opinions and religious preferences...and to find ways to back up my own beliefs against attacks. Since mine is a rationally-based belief, I have to argue with quite a few people around here about it.
I have no trouble with "witnesses," but many missionaries that go to other countries and regions don't really give the people there much choice as far as hearing them or not. They go from person-to-person, oftentimes, and I've seen it - I was a loyal and devout Christian for some years before realizing it wasn't what I needed, nor what I truly believed to be true.
But I'm not condemning you for talking to the curious, nor for talking to those interested. I'm only saying those who try to force it on unwilling "unbelievers" or young minds (i.e.: the group here in OK who is trying to get prayer back into public schools) are a) annoying as all hell to those of us who don't believe what they do, and b) really quite immoral according to the whole "live and let live" jazz.

Actually I have not read it my self, I just have heard from a few people who even do not like the contents who think it is well written.. So I do not know exactly in my opinion if it is good or bad. However, some people seem to believe some fictional things are history.. But luckily not everybody

I dislike it for its obviousness, really. You should just try to read it and see, though, as some people like different styles of writing. Myself, I cannot stand Ann Rice's writing style, but she sells like crazy and makes more money in one shipment than I could hope to in a year.
Ah, go figure.

Please age a few years and then return. Or learn to capitalize.

Hey I did not know it was somehow necessary to be able to capitalize.. Come on sometimes it is necessary to state one opinion, even if it might be really misinformed. You will just help to widen the gap if you come with such statements. If all Christians or religious people (I do not know if you are one) come which such statement, no wonder someone might get misinformed, if we assume he is. I do not like his seemingly hate. But should I therefore response with hate too?

Doesn't the Da Vinci Code
Your drivel is nothing new, just a bit of entertainment on how ill-informed and and your degree of conformity to the "lets hate this stereotype today" group.
.
400 years is a day for you! you must be really Fucking old :eek:

Lol, the spanissh inquisition!
More like the spamish inquistion.

Ehh, the Da Vinci Code tries too hard to be a page-turner. It's all about shock and "suspense" that is way too predictable. I tried to read it and got bored.

I think the way it is written to be a page turner is quite skillful, but it is all rather silly. As a bit of light reading to pass the time on an airplane or bus it's fine, but if you are grounded in reality you can't take it seriously. It's sort of like television in book form. I think all the hype about it is pretty much just hype.

Oh, I know no one forces me. I read things like this out of an interest for others' opinions and religious preferences...and to find ways to back up my own beliefs against attacks. Since mine is a rationally-based belief, I have to argue with quite a few people around here about it.
I have no trouble with "witnesses," but many missionaries that go to other countries and regions don't really give the people there much choice as far as hearing them or not. They go from person-to-person, oftentimes, and I've seen it - I was a loyal and devout Christian for some years before realizing it wasn't what I needed, nor what I truly believed to be true.
But I'm not condemning you for talking to the curious, nor for talking to those interested. I'm only saying those who try to force it on unwilling "unbelievers" or young minds (i.e.: the group here in OK who is trying to get prayer back into public schools) are a) annoying as all hell to those of us who don't believe what they do, and b) really quite immoral according to the whole "live and let live" jazz.

Thats nice, that you these things out of interest. Yeah mine is a rational based belief too :). You seem to have met some weired Christian missionaries. I grew up in a missionary family. So I know really a lot about how missionaries bring the Gospel. I never met those Missionaries you are talking of. They allways had the choice to not listen, to reject what they heard or not to come. We do not forced them to come to the church and we do not bait them e.g. gave them money to come although we were kind to them and helped the sick. But that was to help them and Jesus himself healed the sick and cared for them so Christians should too. But actually there was another reason, why at that time when the missionaries were there so many started to belief in Christ.
However, I am convinced that there should be no public by the state enforced prayer. If there is because there is a crowd of people than I believe it is ok, but not to make it a ritual in a school degreed by the state and school. I do not see any example in the NT where this happened. And I do not belief at all that this is something Jesus taught.

400 years is a day for you! you must be really Fucking old :eek:

(Pained expression) I was not aiming for that to be taken quite as literally. What I meant by that quote is that religion has been attacked more openly, by more people in the recent years than in the years before it. Now, this is only from my personal point of view, the truth might be that religion has been under fire for several decades, but from my understanding it has grown a consierable amount in the last century. And in present-day society it has been attacked because of the scandals with the Catholic church, the Muslim Wahabists Extremists (Sorry, I cannot remember the exact spelling of that particular sect of Islam), and the Bush "crusades". But once again, that's from my personal stand-point, if you have evidence to the contrary I would be more than happy to read it over.

I think the way it is written to be a page turner is quite skillful, but it is all rather silly. As a bit of light reading to pass the time on an airplane or bus it's fine, but if you are grounded in reality you can't take it seriously. It's sort of like television in book form. I think all the hype about it is pretty much just hype.

Ah, well, it just seems to me that the hype is the only thing really keeping the book going. The author depended on the shock value of the storyline, and the public delivered...I'm more a fan of Thomas Harris and Ayn Rand myself; much more realistic, but still page-turners like you would not believe.
And for fantastical, suspended-belief stuff...Neil Gaiman.



...what the hell is up with this smily? :gundge: ...It bothers me.

Lol, the spanissh inquisition!

Catholicism, not true christians.

I dislike it for its obviousness, really. You should just try to read it and see, though, as some people like different styles of writing. Myself, I cannot stand Ann Rice's writing style, but she sells like crazy and makes more money in one shipment than I could hope to in a year.
Ah, go figure.
I might look into it some time.. Lol, I just thought of how it would be to write my own book and make a lot of money. But I guess even the people who can not figure out if a book is well written or not and have the weirdest liking of writing styles would never consider buying it :)

Thats nice, that you these things out of interest. Yeah mine is a rational based belief too :). You seem to have met some weired Christian missionaries. I grew up in a missionary family. So I know really a lot about how missionaries bring the Gospel. I never met those Missionaries you are talking of. They allways had the choice to not listen, to reject what they heard or not to come. We do not forced them to come to the church and we do not bait them e.g. gave them money to come although we were kind to them and helped the sick. But that was to help them and Jesus himself healed the sick and cared for them so Christians should too. But actually there was another reason, why at that time when the missionaries were there so many started to belief in Christ.
However, I am convinced that there should be no public by the state enforced prayer. If there is because there is a crowd of people than I believe it is ok, but not to make it a ritual in a school degreed by the state and school. I do not see any example in the NT where this happened. And I do not belief at all that this is something Jesus taught.

Well, not even so much baiting or forcing religion, but in many cases (at least in other countries), people convert for the medicine and food and other supplies that the missionaries have to offer - not because they really believe what they are teaching.
Not that it's always the case, mind you, but oftentimes...

I'm actually adamantly against any prayer in school or at a school-sanctioned event. I went to a small high school in the middle of the Bible Belt in a very tiny, conservative, highly-judgemental town. There were prayers (lead by students, mind you) read over the intercom at football games. They even said a prayer at my graduation and insisted I stand and remove my cap for it. Whether you are forced by your school or fellow students, it doesn't matter - forced prayer is forced prayer and should be abolished.

I think the way it is written to be a page turner is quite skillful, but it is all rather silly. As a bit of light reading to pass the time on an airplane or bus it's fine, but if you are grounded in reality you can't take it seriously. It's sort of like television in book form. I think all the hype about it is pretty much just hype.
might be I do not consider the content worthy to read, especially to learn something. But people like entertainment..

...what the hell is up with this smily? :gundge: ...It bothers me.

Okay, stepping off my soap box. I think that smiley is based off of Unreal Championships Bio-gun, at least I think that's the right game/gun...

The one that was really embarassed to be killed by because it actually shoots like that.

(Pained expression) I was not aiming for that to be taken quite as literally. What I meant by that quote is that religion has been attacked more openly, by more people in the recent years than in the years before it. Now, this is only from my personal point of view, the truth might be that religion has been under fire for several decades, but from my understanding it has grown a consierable amount in the last century. And in present-day society it has been attacked because of the scandals with the Catholic church, the Muslim Wahabists Extremists (Sorry, I cannot remember the exact spelling of that particular sect of Islam), and the Bush "crusades". But once again, that's from my personal stand-point, if you have evidence to the contrary I would be more than happy to read it over.

Heh, Knew what you me I was just Screwin' with you :D

Well I think that religion has been 'under attack' (I put that in quotes because some of these attacks are now scientific truths) Since the Renascence and even then Ancient (Greek) Scholars debated the existence of their gods. But I do see your point.

"Crusades"! HAH!

Well, not even so much baiting or forcing religion, but in many cases (at least in other countries), people convert for the medicine and food and other supplies that the missionaries have to offer - not because they really believe what they are teaching.
Not that it's always the case, mind you, but oftentimes...

I'm actually adamantly against any prayer in school or at a school-sanctioned event. I went to a small high school in the middle of the Bible Belt in a very tiny, conservative, highly-judgemental town. There were prayers (lead by students, mind you) read over the intercom at football games. They even said a prayer at my graduation and insisted I stand and remove my cap for it. Whether you are forced by your school or fellow students, it doesn't matter - forced prayer is forced prayer and should be abolished.

You know what, I agree even more with you! I really do not like that. I have heard from a preacher that he is baiting people by proclaiming he will heal them, or God will heal them when they come. I just talked about this with a nother Christian. These people even if we consider them to be healed (My belief is that this is possible for God) are just coming mainly for that purpose. Then they see oh Christianity must be good without ever having had any idea what Christianity about. When people become Christians, they should be taught what is Christianity about. Otherwise something might happen as in Rwanda, where genocide happend and that in a country where it was claimed that there were 80% Christians!! I just had a lecture on that by a Rwandan scholar. Most of them never even knew what the bible was teaching. There were in fact not encouraged to read the bible. They are Catholics and really do not know something about what they claim to be by name. Although I do not agree with everything in Catholism I am convinced something like that wouild never have happened if they were devout Catholics.

Yes such prayer in school are not really a good idea I think. Only if it is a Christian school and only Christians are accepted to enter it or those who volunteerly want to. In a public school there should not be enforced prayer. I agree.

You know what, I agree even more with you! I really do not like that. I have heard from a preacher that he is baiting people by proclaiming he will heal them, or God will heal them when they come. I just talked about this with a nother Christian. These people even if we consider them to be healed (My belief is that this is possible for God) are just coming mainly for that purpose. Then they see oh Christianity must be good without ever having had any idea what Christianity about. When people become Christians, they should be taught what is Christianity about. Otherwise something might happen as in Rwanda, where genocide happend and that in a country where it was claimed that there were 80% Christians!! I just had a lecture on that by a Rwandan scholar. Most of them never even knew what the bible was teaching. There were in fact not encouraged to read the bible. They are Catholics and really do not know something about what they claim to be by name. Although I do not agree with everything in Catholism I am convinced something like that wouild never have happened if they were devout Catholics.

Yes such prayer in school are not really a good idea I think. Only if it is a Christian school and only Christians are accepted to enter it or those who volunteerly want to. In a public school there should not be enforced prayer. I agree.

Actually, according to the Catholic doctrine, one of the most purely Catholic things is precisely what happened during the Spanish Inquisition...what the Catholic church is doing right now is pretty much specifically against their own doctrine. Which is funny, considering.

Even then, I hate the idea of young children being stuck in a Christian/Catholic/Religious school. They have no time to choose for themselves what is right for them...and even moral codes have to be established outside of religion. Or should be anyway.
At such a tender age, anything said by an adult is pretty much unquestionable TRUTH for most children...notice the "most"...Hah.

*sigh* again. Okay, first off, the De Venci code = anti-Christian in most every way, and a vast majority of Christians think it's really screwed up and I myself can point out at least half a dozen outright lies in it about it's main points.

Also, take note of every single group or organization that has lasted for any extended period of time. They become corrupt, wattered down, filled with infighting and such. The Christian Church has been around for nearly 2000 years, so it's no surpise there have been lots of problems along the way. Also, like with any group, just because someone calls themselves something, like Christian, doesn't make them one, nor does it mean that those that don't fit into every single mold that a group puts up isn't one either.

Honestly, read the Bible, the whole new testament is about patience and love and acceptance and endurance and treating others nicer than they treat you. That doesn't match up with many actions that people who have claimed to be Christians have done over the ages. I'll be honest about my thoughts, I'm fairly certain a vast majority that claim to be Christian are not nowdays. A particular event that opened my eyes to that fact was my visit around last Easter to a Russian church up in Washington when I was visiting my girlfriend. Now, these people, from everything I saw and could understand, put to shame nearly every single Christian I knew with their faith and devotion. It tends to be that way with most non american and europian Christians I've noticed, as the best Christian I know of in the world personaly is from Nigeria. American "Christians" are pretty bad examples of what Christianity really is, because unlike those Russian immigrants church I went to, we've never been weeded out or put where it's not socialy acceptable to go to church, so naturaly you have those that just go to go.

Also it's very unfair to judge people by the actions of virtually unrelated people who lived hundreds of years ago in another country and didn't even belong to the same group as them. Even Catholics have had major reform and renounced most of their ways, thanks to Pope Paul III that actually made priests stick to their vows and stopped the centuries old practices of selling church offices and selling of indulgences. No Christian is proud of the things you talk about, nor do they aprove or claim them or try to justify them by any means, no more than Americans aprove of slavery or the near genocide of the native americans, those are a lot closer and have a lot more to do with you than anything that you can try to pin on Christians.

*sigh* again. Okay, first off, the De Venci code = anti-Christian in most every way, and a vast majority of Christians think it's really screwed up and I myself can point out at least half a dozen outright lies in it about it's main points.

Also, take note of every single group or organization that has lasted for any extended period of time. They become corrupt, wattered down, filled with infighting and such. The Christian Church has been around for nearly 2000 years, so it's no surpise there have been lots of problems along the way. Also, like with any group, just because someone calls themselves something, like Christian, doesn't make them one, nor does it mean that those that don't fit into every single mold that a group puts up isn't one either.

Honestly, read the Bible, the whole new testament is about patience and love and acceptance and endurance and treating others nicer than they treat you. That doesn't match up with many actions that people who have claimed to be Christians have done over the ages. I'll be honest about my thoughts, I'm fairly certain a vast majority that claim to be Christian are nowdays. A particular event that opened my eyes to that fact was my visit around last Easter to a Russian church up in Washington when I was visiting my girlfriend. Now, these people, from everything I saw and could understand, put to shame nearly every single Christian I knew with their faith and devotion. It tends to be that way with most non american and europian Christians I've noticed, as the best Christian I know of in the world personaly is from Nigeria. American "Christians" are pretty bad examples of what Christianity really is, because unlike those Russian immigrants church I went to, we've never been weeded out or put where it's not socialy acceptable to go to church, so naturaly you have those that just go to go.

Also it's very unfair to judge people by the actions of virtually unrelated people who lived hundreds of years ago in another country and didn't even belong to the same group as them. Even Catholics have had major reform and renounced most of their ways, thanks to Pope Paul III that actually made priests stick to their vows and stopped the centuries old practices of selling church offices and selling of indulgences. No Christian is proud of the things you talk about, not do they aprove of claim them or try to justify them by any means, no more than Americans aprove of slavery or the near genocide of the native americans, those are a lot closer and have a lot more to do with you than anything that you can try to pin on Christians.

Well said.

You say how muslims and christians killed people. That's true, however, in the global span of history, their wars, and killings are so small they can't really stand up to anything others have done. At this time i wish to remind you of the true killers. Stalin Killed 22 million people, more than anyother person in history, and for that matter, more than every war in history except WWII. And our buddy stalin wasn't a christian, or a muslim. But a left-wing atheist. Hmmmm. That's a big number. Ohhhh. Lets not forget the Fuhrer. yes hitler was born a christian, but by the time he was the fuhrer, he had turned on christianity, attacking christianity in several of his speaches. And, plus he killed 12 million people, once again, that's more than every war, execpt WWII. Oh, plus he started WWII, so we could add the 55 million people who died to that. So two atheists killed 89 million people. While the modern 5-or-so billion people who practice a religion today, have done considerably less.So before you attack Right-wing religious people, just remember the two atheists who killed 89 million people. Thank you. And have a very wonderful Sunday. God bless.

you should read a book about hitlers divine vision when he was injured in ww1 when he received one of his iron crosses, he claimed to have had some sort of epiphany divine revelation type thing which became one of the most powerful motivating reasons for him to go on and do what he did. sorry cant remember the name think it was 'hitlers cross' or something he was obsessed with relgious artefact and had a working relationship with the catholic church. your so called atheist was a religiuos nut. as for stalin so what if he was an atheist. the combined total of unnecessary crimes against humanity would be ridiculous in its proportions if you took the history of organised religion into account and the amount of deaths rapes etc that took place as a result of religious conflict. 'and the lord god said wipe out that race of people' so they did. and so on. excellent justification for the god sanctioned killing of innocents though well done.

yeah its a pity its all so far gone from the aims expressed in the bible. a crying shame. a horrible shame. when is the antichrist going to turn up so we can all enjoy the resulting 1000 years of peace i wonder.

your so called atheist was a religiuos nut. as for stalin so what if he was an atheist. the combined total of unnecessary crimes against humanity would be ridiculous in its proportions if you took the history of organised religion into account and the amount of deaths rapes etc that took place as a result of religious conflict. 'and the lord god said wipe out that race of people' so they did. and so on. excellent justification for the god sanctioned killing of innocents though well done.

Just because someone claims to be religious, or puts his actions or motives behind a veil of religion doesn't make them genuine or Christian in any way. That's like the oldest trick in the book to make yourself a total ruler is claim divinity or head of the major and enforced religious system.

Also take note that Hitler either killed or imprissoned or made nearly every religious leader in Germany leave the country. Along with the some 7 million Jews he killed, he also killed around 5 million Christian civilians that were in his country and those he took over.

Also, again unfair to bunch in every single religion into one group when they by deffinition defy or contradict each other in some way to be considered different.

yeah its a pity its all so far gone from the aims expressed in the bible. a crying shame. a horrible shame. when is the antichrist going to turn up so we can all enjoy the resulting 1000 years of peace i wonder.

Thaaat would be going by a prophetic, literal translation of Revelation, which few real Bible scholars go by these days. The literal and future translation of Revelation is right up there with "we'll spend eternity in heaven" with church myths that float around.

(for the record, the Bible says that there will be a new heaven and new earth that the saved will live on in peace with the light of Jesus so there is no night in paradise, whch is not to be confused with the current heaven when God currently resides)

yeah its a pity its all so far gone from the aims expressed in the bible. a crying shame. a horrible shame. when is the antichrist going to turn up so we can all enjoy the resulting 1000 years of peace i wonder.

The anti-Christ is a symbol of all that is wrong and flawed in the world, the binary opposite of the symbol of all that that is right and perfect, Christ. Together they complete the common expression of the oppositional duality of human reality that is a hallmark of Western thought.

The peace you seek is within you.

you know that for a fact? that must be wonderful to have it all worked out.
a shining example to me.

The anti-Christ is a symbol of all that is wrong and flawed in the world, the binary opposite of the symbol of all that that is right and perfect, Christ. Together they complete the common expression of the oppositional duality of human reality that is a hallmark of Western thought.

The peace you seek is within you.

No, that would be Satan, the anti-Christ is someone claiming and apearing to be the returned Christ, or for Jews the Christ period, and try to lead the world astray that way, which is close, but not quite what Satan does in that the anti-Christ has a direct, personal role.

Theists would argue that is comes from above ;)

you know that for a fact? that must be wonderful to have it all worked out.
a shining example to me.

Well, it's written plain and simple in the Bible, and after a couple years of being a religion major, I've been over that a few times.

forgive, wait you already have thankyou for not judging me as well as the good book says. oh no hang on there were several judgements scattered throughout. pity. youve sinned. i forgive you.;)

you know that for a fact? that must be wonderful to have it all worked out.
a shining example to me.

It is wonderful. A life of hell and learning has taught me to find heaven in my own heart, my own mind, my own life. I hope you are able to learn the same thing.

The anti-Christ is a symbol of all that is wrong and flawed in the world, the binary opposite of the symbol of all that that is right and perfect, Christ. Together they complete the common expression of the oppositional duality of human reality that is a hallmark of Western thought.

The peace you seek is within you.

Question for you: what if one does not believe that Christ is the embodiment of all that is good and just and right? This is a serious inquiry, mind you, I'm not mocking you, nor am I mocking your views.
I just don't agree with many things the Bible holds to be moral, and most people I've happened across cannot dispute my claims; they just say that "the Bible said it, therefore it must be so" and go on about their business.

sorry about all this rubbish anyone who reads this thread the debate rages on to no end as boring as it was the first time. the clued versus the unclued the knowledgeable versus the ignorant dadadada..... I:rolleyes: at myself.

forgive, wait you already have thankyou for not judging me as well as the good book says. oh no hang on there were several judgements scattered throughout. pity. youve sinned. i forgive you.;)

What? To be fair, the Bible says not to pass judgment in the sense that you also pass punishment for it as well, taking his place in that matter, and Christians are encouraged to hold each other accountable and tell non Christians of the reality of their sinful state.

Question for you: what if one does not believe that Christ is the embodiment of all that is good and just and right? This is a serious inquiry, mind you, I'm not mocking you, nor am I mocking your views.
I just don't agree with many things the Bible holds to be moral, and most people I've happened across cannot dispute my claims; they just say that "the Bible said it, therefore it must be so" and go on about their business.

Yeah, I hate the whole "it proves itself" thing too, and as far as the theology goes, it is confusing to anyone at times, much of the questionable actions though in the old testament are considered to be just, more than fair, and in reality, the people who get it unfairly are the ones who don't recieve punishent for their sins as opposed to the ones who do. It's like speeding, lots of people do it, but only a few get pulled over for while they are driving.

Question for you: what if one does not believe that Christ is the embodiment of all that is good and just and right?

Then it is highly likely that you use a different symbol for the same essential concept.

This is a serious inquiry, mind you, I'm not mocking you, nor am I mocking your views.

Thank you.

I just don't agree with many things the Bible holds to be moral, and most people I've happened across cannot dispute my claims; they just say that "the Bible said it, therefore it must be so" and go on about their business.

Some choose to take the Bible as the Word from which they gain the means to live their lives and an insight into that life. Others choose to do the same with the Qur'an, the Tanakh, the Gita, or perhaps the writings of Aristotle, Sun-Tzu, Nietzsche, Musashi, Mill, Kant, even a combination of various writings of the wise. Some choose to blaze their own path of thought, leaving the old paths where they first learned to live, creating a Word that guides their life, one more unique to themselves. There seems to be little difference; no matter which path people choose, some will stubbornly hold to it without giving due consideration to other points of view, and others are open to changing paths, even doing so in many cases. I cannot fault another for being determined to hold to the path they have chosen, nor can I fault them for being open to change. Both flexibility and constancy have their place.

Yeah, I hate the whole "it proves itself" thing too, and as far as the theology goes, it is confusing to anyone at times, much of the questionable actions though in the old testament are considered to be just, more than fair, and in reality, the people who get it unfairly are the ones who don't recieve punishent for their sins as opposed to the ones who do. It's like speeding, lots of people do it, but only a few get pulled over for while they are driving.

As an atheist, I just don't see any reason behind that. Please explain?

As an atheist, I just don't see any reason behind that. Please explain?

Well, if your an atheist to begin with, the whole idea of divine right doesn't work anyway with your personal philosophy and certainly never will make sense without change or broadaning of views or simple looking at it from another's perspective.

Let's say there is a God who created everything, therefore it is all his and he has sovereign rights over it as a high life form who made and owns all that is. We, like animals to us, are lesser beings, and much of our rights are forefit when compared to the being that is higher and made and owns us, like a dog that attacks and kills other animals or goes rabbid is put down by a master.

Now, if you think that humans are the top life-form in existance, then this of course doesn't work, because we have the priority over morality and judgment, not a god figure, much like in a government, how our president can pass laws that would arrest people, or pardon those he wishes to pardon.

Then it is highly likely that you use a different symbol for the same essential concept.




That's where you are essentialy wrong.
The Roman/Greek had a multitude of gods, each symbolised a way of doing things. Monotheism has generated the one thought/way fits all.

Gnostics believe the divinity lies within oneself, the need for an external symbol of "good" is typical monotheistic behaviour. Even when you are not a religous person, one from the west tends to view the world from a singular perspective.

Also try reading some nietzsche on this subject.

BTW Hotrodia, Lao Tzu, good stuff. I was thiiiis close *does little finger thing* to going Taoist or Christian/Taosit after reading through his book, Tao Te Ching. SO close to Christianity in so many ways it's amazing, just he's a better writter. Like a new testament just written before Christ came without knowledge of him.

.....LOOK! A BED! *sleeps*

That's where you are essentialy wrong.

Re-read what I wrote. I said that it's highly likely that the poster had another symbol for essentially the same concept, not that they would necessarily do so. And it seems unlikely that said poster, being an atheist, would believe in a polytheistic pantheon such as the Greco-Roman one you mention.

The Roman/Greek had a multitude of gods, each symbolised a way of doing things. Monotheism has generated the one thought/way fits all.

I'm well aware of both these facts, thank you. And I do think that a representation of a multiplicity of paths has advantages over the one-way-fits-all approach. Interestingly, since we're on the subject of the Church in this thread, Catholic Christianity has combined both unity and multiplicity of paths through the belief in one God and the representation of a community of Saints whose paths provide a multitude of examples of a life lived within the Christian faith in that one God.

Gnostics believe the divinity lies within oneself, the need for an external symbol of "good" is typical monotheistic behaviour.

Is the implication here that Gnosticism and monotheism are somehow mutually exclusive?

Even when you are not a religous person, one from the west tends to view the world from a singular perspective.

All individuals tend to view the world from a singular perspective, being singular.

Also try reading some nietzsche on this subject.

Why?

whatever conclusions are reached about the validity etc. the good the bad the right the wrong...
monotheistic organised relgion does manage to control the population still as it was meant to when it was adopted as the official religion of the holy roman empire. through the continued use of its literature and teachings it keeps the ideas of what it thinks are right and wrong firmly in the eyes of those who would perhaps question it but end up being sidetracked by a day at the races etc and strict adherence to all the laws involved in a day out, which exist as a direct result of the moral fabric woven by archaic religious beliefs.

BTW Hotrodia, Lao Tzu, good stuff. I was thiiiis close *does little finger thing* to going Taoist or Christian/Taosit after reading through his book, Tao Te Ching. SO close to Christianity in so many ways it's amazing, just he's a better writter. Like a new testament just written before Christ came without knowledge of him.

.....LOOK! A BED! *sleeps*

Thanks. I very much admire Lao Tzu's teachings. Rest well.

Well, if your an atheist to begin with, the whole idea of divine right doesn't work anyway with your personal philosophy and certainly never will make sense without change or broadaning of views or simple looking at it from another's perspective.

Let's say there is a God who created everything, therefore it is all his and he has sovereign rights over it as a high life form who made and owns all that is. We, like animals to us, are lesser beings, and much of our rights are forefit when compared to the being that is higher and made and owns us, like a dog that attacks and kills other animals or goes rabbid is put down by a master.

Now, if you think that humans are the top life-form in existance, then this of course doesn't work, because we have the priority over morality and judgment, not a god figure, much like in a government, how our president can pass laws that would arrest people, or pardon those he wishes to pardon.

I actually was trying to see it from another view, but what you were saying made very little sense to me before. I don't understand how that had anything to do with what I was asking.
Difference between humans/God and dogs/humans scenarios? That rabid dog can do damage to and perhaps even kill the human he turns against. We are seemingly without the ability to rebel, other than just not believe. And that doesn't benefit us, if we have a doubt and think we're going to Hell for it.
Ahh, I just don't like the whole "Jesus is the 'son of man,' and was perfect in every way. People cannot possibly be perfect." That's a contradiction. Another way to look at it is...if we cannot be perfect. If it is impossible for us to remain free of sin. Then how is it reasonable at all for God to expect us to? Especially when he's supposed to be such a loving, forgiving, and merciful deity?
Plus...why does saying "I'm sorry" have to require a blood sacrafice? And the blood of his only son, no less?

Then it is highly likely that you use a different symbol for the same essential concept.

Does a human being with aspirations of greatness and the intelligence and drive to achieve those heights, not to mention the will to be almost completely selfish about his/her needs before others' and the freedom of the individual before all else count?
Because that's pretty much my ideal morality.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Some choose to take the Bible as the Word from which they gain the means to live their lives and an insight into that life. Others choose to do the same with the Qur'an, the Tanakh, the Gita, or perhaps the writings of Aristotle, Sun-Tzu, Nietzsche, Musashi, Mill, Kant, even a combination of various writings of the wise. Some choose to blaze their own path of thought, leaving the old paths where they first learned to live, creating a Word that guides their life, one more unique to themselves. There seems to be little difference; no matter which path people choose, some will stubbornly hold to it without giving due consideration to other points of view, and others are open to changing paths, even doing so in many cases. I cannot fault another for being determined to hold to the path they have chosen, nor can I fault them for being open to change. Both flexibility and constancy have their place.

I can see where you're coming from, and I agree, for the most part. The problem I have with that is when the words one uses to guide one's life encroach on the lives and rights of others. (And when those that are essentially religious encroach into politics.)
The only thing I can fault someone for is not changing when it is obvious they are wrong in their moral views, or for changing in the face of a challenge when it is obvious that they are right. As far as some things go, there isn't room for a "whatever works for you" kind of mentality, because what "works" for some people would severely hinder others. Example: if a religion tells you that you are not doing your religious duty unless you are preaching your views to everyone, all the time, whenever the chance permits itself...then you are invading my personal freedom by badgering me about it.


Actually, one of my original intentions in asking the question I did was to get someone to try and debate me about how Christ was perfect and flawless and the ultimate in good...but I haven't got that. Oh well, thanks for the good nature and the intelligent discussion. Heh heh.

Does a human being with aspirations of greatness and the intelligence and drive to achieve those heights, not to mention the will to be almost completely selfish about his/her needs before others' and the freedom of the individual before all else count?

Certainly.

Because that's pretty much my ideal morality.

It's one I've given serious thought to, and it can be argued reasonably.

I can see where you're coming from, and I agree, for the most part. The problem I have with that is when the words one uses to guide one's life encroach on the lives and rights of others. (And when those that are essentially religious encroach into politics.)

I thought that might be the case. Many seem to have difficulty with the life-paths of other affecting them through personal interactions or legal restrictions. It seems to me that it is a question of how highly you value personal liberty. If you value personal liberty highly, you would prefer that the government protect that liberty. If you value personal liberty to a lesser degree, you are unlikely to see the need to oppose restrictions on life-paths.

The only thing I can fault someone for is not changing when it is obvious they are wrong in their moral views, or for changing in the face of a challenge when it is obvious that they are right. As far as some things go, there isn't room for a "whatever works for you" kind of mentality, because what "works" for some people would severely hinder others. Example: if a religion tells you that you are not doing your religious duty unless you are preaching your views to everyone, all the time, whenever the chance permits itself...then you are invading my personal freedom by badgering me about it.

Question: Is it any better to enforce your view of personal freedom on others than it is to enforce your view of an appropriate life on others?

Actually, one of my original intentions in asking the question I did was to get someone to try and debate me about how Christ was perfect and flawless and the ultimate in good...but I haven't got that.

I suppose I could debate that point with you, but I'm not inclined to at the moment. Perhaps another time.

Oh well, thanks for the good nature and the intelligent discussion. Heh heh.

You're quite welcome. I appreciate having the same from you.

I thought that might be the case. Many seem to have difficulty with the life-paths of other affecting them through personal interactions or legal restrictions. It seems to me that it is a question of how highly you value personal liberty. If you value personal liberty highly, you would prefer that the government protect that liberty. If you value personal liberty to a lesser degree, you are unlikely to see the need to oppose restrictions on life-paths.

Actually, I would much rather the government stay out of most personal life-choices of most anyone...but the thing that irks me about it is this: when one is in a public area (meaning it is not owned by a private individual, company, organization, or corporation), doesn't one have a right to be free from harrassment and pestering? The only real way to deal with issues like this, aside from commercializing and privatizing everything (not a bad idea, if you ask me, but not likely), is for the government to enforce laws that state that one cannot encroach upon another without that other's permission. Basically, don't preach unless someone asks you to, and if they ask you to stop...stop.


Question: Is it any better to enforce your view of personal freedom on others than it is to enforce your view of an appropriate life on others?

Yes, it is, because if their "appropriate life" affects mine in any invasive way, it's they're forcing their views on me. However, if my view is to just live and let live...and that they should leave me be whenever I ask them to...then that is not invading their privacy, their rights (even if you count freedom of speech - their rights should not edge over and blur mine and vice versa), or their lives at all. In fact, the whole point of my view is to stay away from invasion of their lives at all and for them to respect the same.

I suppose I could debate that point with you, but I'm not inclined to at the moment. Perhaps another time.

Nah, unless you like playing Devil's Advocate. Heh, I'm just a stubborn, inquisitive soul liking these forums a little too well.

Actually, I would much rather the government stay out of most personal life-choices of most anyone...but the thing that irks me about it is this: when one is in a public area (meaning it is not owned by a private individual, company, organization, or corporation), doesn't one have a right to be free from harrassment and pestering? The only real way to deal with issues like this, aside from commercializing and privatizing everything (not a bad idea, if you ask me, but not likely), is for the government to enforce laws that state that one cannot encroach upon another without that other's permission. Basically, don't preach unless someone asks you to, and if they ask you to stop...stop.

Ah. I tend to agree with you on that. But...

Yes, it is, because if their "appropriate life" affects mine in any invasive way, it's they're forcing their views on me. However, if my view is to just live and let live...and that they should leave me be whenever I ask them to...then that is not invading their privacy, their rights (even if you count freedom of speech - their rights should not edge over and blur mine and vice versa), or their lives at all. In fact, the whole point of my view is to stay away from invasion of their lives at all and for them to respect the same.

The difficulty here seems to be that you have, like me, a rather limited definition of freedom. All persons are free, but (and the "but" means that they're really not) with the condition that they not interfere with the freedom of others. Some might argue that genuine freedom requires that we be able to interfere with the lives of others, to exercise our full potential in pursuing our betterment by interfering with the freedom of others. I've seen this argument made well before, so I'm not inclined to discount it entirely.

Nah, unless you like playing Devil's Advocate.

I do enjoy playing Devil's Advocate now and again. I'm just not in the mood to debate that particular point at the moment.

Heh, I'm just a stubborn, inquisitive soul liking these forums a little too well.

I too, am such a soul.

I know that the Church has had it's fair share of corruption, even though the bad press it's recieved usually outweighs it's actual problems. And I'm not trying to put down the Church or anything - that is just a stupid thing to try and do in chat rooms, as I would be verbally tarred and feathered - but I've got a few problems with the things I've been hearing. And it hasn't just been recently, either; it's been happening for years. I mean, priests who are pedophiles? How can the Church allow these kinds of things? Granted, they don't know everyone's interior motives just by speaking with them, but I would hope that people like the aforementioned would be mostly eliminated out of the advancement process before they gained a position of any real influence. And there have even been instances in which other members of the Church have stood up for the pedophiles, trying to cover for them or some such thing. I know that there are FAR more pedophiles out there which are most certainly not religious, but...I find it hard to believe in a faith that protects their own to that degree. Everyone knows that it is wrong to do that sort of thing to children. Every time I catch wind of the latest priest who has been revealed as one of these pedophiles, I keep asking myself WHY it's allowed to continue.

Of course, on the other side, there are most certainly people withing the church who are as disgusted as I am at these sorts of things. But if I could get anyone's opinion as to why these people keep surfacing, I'd appreciate it.

As a side note, I'm an Athiest. I don't put down those who are religious, and they don't usually put me down either. In fact, I've never disliked a person for religious reasons. I'm saying all this to (hopefully) divert any comments relating to my hatred of religion. :(

And it hasn't just been recently, either; it's been happening for years. I mean, priests who are pedophiles? How can the Church allow these kinds of things? Granted, they don't know everyone's interior motives just by speaking with them, but I would hope that people like the aforementioned would be mostly eliminated out of the advancement process before they gained a position of any real influence. And there have even been instances in which other members of the Church have stood up for the pedophiles, trying to cover for them or some such thing. I know that there are FAR more pedophiles out there which are most certainly not religious, but...I find it hard to believe in a faith that protects their own to that degree. Everyone knows that it is wrong to do that sort of thing to children. Every time I catch wind of the latest priest who has been revealed as one of these pedophiles, I keep asking myself WHY it's allowed to continue.

It's not actually being allowed to continue. More screening procedures are being instituted precisely because of the scandals. For example, I have been an employee at my local parish's office, and I don't even work with the children, but they did a background check on me to make sure there was no sexual criminal activity in my past just to be on the safe side.

As to the attempts to cover up so many of the cases of abuse, well they were probably trying to avoid precisely what has happened anyway, a public scandal and outcry that would hurt the church. Sadly, they didn't realize that it would have been far less damaging in the long run for them to admit the abuse and deal with it properly right away. A result of unfortunately limited human perspectives.

Of course, on the other side, there are most certainly people withing the church who are as disgusted as I am at these sorts of things. But if I could get anyone's opinion as to why these people keep surfacing, I'd appreciate it.

Part of why it seems such a huge problem right now is that we're seeing 50 years worth of abuse coming out in a much shorter span of a few recent years.

As a side note, I'm an Athiest. I don't put down those who are religious, and they don't usually put me down either. In fact, I've never disliked a person for religious reasons. I'm saying all this to (hopefully) divert any comments relating to my hatred of religion. :(

Given how reasonable and fair-minded your post was, most folks aren't going to leap on and cry "religion-hater!" And those that do are the same folks who would do it regardless of how you posted.

Edit: But the post below this is an excellent example of how to get responses regarding your hatred of religion.

I know Im not going to change anyones mind concerning religion, but then again, I dont care about converting anyone, I like the idea of making people aware of the organizations they follow.

The Catholic Church has been a collection of murdering bastards since they began.
We all know this, the Inquisitions, the Crusades, priests buggering kids for years, and the church ignores it, harboring Nazi fugitives, (including the Pope).

Theres really no debate.
If following thier teachings makes you happy, thats fine, but never imply they have ever done the world anything but harm, or at best, the harm they have done far, far outweighs any good.

Were talking about an organization that encourages Africans not to use condoms, when the number of HIV positve people can be over 70% in parts of Africa.

They preach compassion to anyone who will listen, but are the most famous terrorists of all time, the hippocracy inherent within, is so thick you could comb it.

They have cultivated thier dogma so intensly, they have managed to get entirely away from what Jesus actually taught, and focused on the sole point of his supposed divinity, this means instead of acting how Jesus wanted you to, they instead, focus on the idea of his ressurection, and little else.

So then, if you find peace or joy in being a catholic, thats great, but just be aware that the group you belong to, is one of the most infamous, lethal, conniving, greedy, power hungry, murdering bunch of bastards in all of history.

Oh noes, I think we have a non-conformer here. *sighs*

Well you can "rail against society" and wear black, and kiss other guys if you want, but to be honest you're no less of a slave for it. And for fuck's sake, don't use not-that-good lyrics from songs to prove your point. Make something decent up yourself.




Anyway, yeah, the church is BAD and WRONG, but it's been that way for thousands of years. And it's not going to change, to be honest.

The difficulty here seems to be that you have, like me, a rather limited definition of freedom. All persons are free, but (and the "but" means that they're really not) with the condition that they not interfere with the freedom of others. Some might argue that genuine freedom requires that we be able to interfere with the lives of others, to exercise our full potential in pursuing our betterment by interfering with the freedom of others. I've seen this argument made well before, so I'm not inclined to discount it entirely.

The problem there is that's what makes society able to function: the inability of people to encroach on other's lives. (Man, I use the word "encroach" a lot...) I could just as easily argue that I'm not free to live my life as it should be lived unless I am free to hit a person that makes me angry without consequences. If the government restricts that, they are restricting my personal choice! Wah! But that would constitute assault, and for good reason. I'm not preaching anarchy so much as Libertarianism.


I do enjoy playing Devil's Advocate now and again. I'm just not in the mood to debate that particular point at the moment.

Oh, I understand. I have trouble playing the part, myself, but I appreciate it when I find those who can.

The problem there is that's what makes society able to function: the inability of people to encroach on other's lives.

Society functions fine without that inability, though you may be able to demonstrate that societies that respect individual freedoms are more productive.

I could just as easily argue that I'm not free to live my life as it should be lived unless I am free to hit a person that makes me angry without consequences.

Certainly, and I suspect that the only reason either of us is inclined to view that argument as absurd is that we have internalized certain social conventions.

If the government restricts that, they are restricting my personal choice! Wah! But that would constitute assault, and for good reason.

Of course. The legal definition of assault and the negative connotation of the word helps ensure that it is viewed in that way.

I'm not preaching anarchy so much as Libertarianism.

That's definitely what it looks like based on your posts.

Lets end this hear and now!

1. You can't blame religion for peoples wrong doing. Only the people. (Religion doesn't kill people, people do.)

2. There isn't actually much evidence at all that millions of witches were burnt all over the country. And those that were, were more likely hung or beheaded.

3. If you actually look at most of the alleged religious wars, allthough slightly motivated by religion, most of them would have been more like 80% political and 20% Religious. And if religion wasn't involved, they probably would have happened anyway. (Except maybe the crusades).

Dear GOD!

This thread has lasted 6 pages.

What a sin that is. Jesus wouldn't be happy.

Lets end this hear and now!

1. You can't blame religion for peoples wrong doing. Only the people. (Religion doesn't kill people, people do.)

2. There isn't actually much evidence at all that millions of witches were burnt all over the country. And those that were, were more likely hung or beheaded.

3. If you actually look at most of the alleged religious wars, allthough slightly motivated by religion, most of them would have been more like 80% political and 20% Religious. And if religion wasn't involved, they probably would have happened anyway. (Except maybe the crusades).

1. A religion and its followers aere indistinguishable.
If the leading christian organization in the world kill a million people, its pretty safe to blame the religion.

2. Yes there is.
Most of it was seizing land from its owner.
Rich widows were a good target, particularly if they owned a lot of land.
"shes a witch, burn her!", and seize her property.
Happened all over.

3. Uhmm..the "Crusades" were entirerly religious wars.
They were attemtping to seize, occupy and conquer the "Holy" land.

It's not actually being allowed to continue. More screening procedures are being instituted precisely because of the scandals. For example, I have been an employee at my local parish's office, and I don't even work with the children, but they did a background check on me to make sure there was no sexual criminal activity in my past just to be on the safe side.

That...is some of the best news I've heard concerning the Church in far too long. Thank you for the update on that situation.

Part of why it seems such a huge problem right now is that we're seeing 50 years worth of abuse coming out in a much shorter span of a few recent years.

I suppose that could be true, but are you sure it's just been happening for about half a century? No one would know for certain, obviously, but who knows how long these kinds of things could have been going on, or how long it's been covered up. It's just the many scandals like this that really put a damper on what I hear from the Church. I would love to listen to what they say about pacifism and acceptance and think, "Yeah, these guys have a point. We should all get along." But instead, I just remember all the nasty little things I've heard, seen, or caught rumour of concerning the Church, and their words seem hollow, you know? Not that I believe every little badmouth who slanders the Church, mind you, but I do know some of these things really happened.

I'm bored, might as well.

1. A religion and its followers aere indistinguishable.

Funny, I don't have any trouble telling the difference between an individual and a belief system.

If the leading christian organization in the world kill a million people, its pretty safe to blame the religion.

I see. The organization kills a million people, and clearly the religion is to blame, not the organization that did it. Riiiiiight.

The rest of your post I'll not address simply because I don't have a problem with it.

1. A religion and its followers aere indistinguishable.
If the leading christian organization in the world kill a million people, its pretty safe to blame the religion.

2. Yes there is.
Most of it was seizing land from its owner.
Rich widows were a good target, particularly if they owned a lot of land.
"shes a witch, burn her!", and seize her property.
Happened all over.

3. Uhmm..the "Crusades" were entirerly religious wars.
They were attemtping to seize, occupy and conquer the "Holy" land.

1. You can only blame the corrupt leaders of the Church for most of the killings. For instance, they refused to have the Bible translated into english or other native languages to allow the general public to read it for themselves and see how their leaders were going against the teachings. Christianity never preached "Murder your enemies", instead it preached "Love your enemies".

2. If you can find any evidence for this then i will agree with you, but since there are little to no records of this im inclined to disagree with you.

3. As i said before, the crusades was mostly motivated by religion, but not entirely. It was largely a mission of protection.

That...is some of the best news I've heard concerning the Church in far too long. Thank you for the update on that situation.

You're quite welcome.

I suppose that could be true, but are you sure it's just been happening for about half a century?

Actually, sexual issues have been a problem for the church since the beginning. Not necessarily pedophilia all the time, but promiscuity within congregations, priests breaking vows of celibacy and sleeping with unmarried or sometimes married women, and so on.

No one would know for certain, obviously, but who knows how long these kinds of things could have been going on, or how long it's been covered up. It's just the many scandals like this that really put a damper on what I hear from the Church.

Understandably. And the Church is aware that this problem is degrading their moral authority.

I would love to listen to what they say about pacifism and acceptance and think, "Yeah, these guys have a point. We should all get along." But instead, I just remember all the nasty little things I've heard, seen, or caught rumour of concerning the Church, and their words seem hollow, you know? Not that I believe every little badmouth who slanders the Church, mind you, but I do know some of these things really happened.

Yeah. It's a familiar experience. Let's say I meet someone on the bus ride to work and start getting to know them. They seem like a great person and have really good ideas, but they've committed serious crimes in the past. It's hard to see them the same way once you know something like that about a person or organization. I still try, though, in the interest of fairness, and I suspect you do too.

Society functions fine without that inability, though you may be able to demonstrate that societies that respect individual freedoms are more productive.

Technically what I meant, sorry for not making it clearer. All you really need to do to see that these kinds of societies are more productive and have higher morale is to look at a Socialist-goverened country or region...sure, the people don't set toes out of line, but mainly because they've never had a chance to think anything different in their lives. Look at the situation in France, for crying out loud. Riots are rampant, people are kept in "okay" living conditions when their intelligence and ambition should allow them "excellent" ones because the money they make is taxed to death, and it is nearly impossible to fire, hire, quit, or be hired due to the staunch laws they have in place. How does that speak for businesses? A rude receptionist? Sorry, you lose business, as she cannot be fired. A stocker with back problems? Sorry, deal with it.
It's just not a productive way to run a business, much less a country...


Certainly, and I suspect that the only reason either of us is inclined to view that argument as absurd is that we have internalized certain social conventions.

Mm, such as? I'm curious, as I've been spouting off my views rather vehemently (as I'm inclined to do when given a chance, haha) so what're your specifics as far as politics?


Of course. The legal definition of assault and the negative connotation of the word helps ensure that it is viewed in that way.

But why, then, wouldn't theft of my personal time and intrusion into my personal life be recognized? You tread on my rights either way.
(Not YOU, per se, obviously, but the hypothetical "criminal" here.)


That's definitely what it looks like based on your posts.

Ha-Chaa, that's what I've been goin' for. Ten points for me.

Let's say I meet someone on the bus ride to work and start getting to know them. They seem like a great person and have really good ideas, but they've committed serious crimes in the past. It's hard to see them the same way once you know something like that about a person or organization. I still try, though, in the interest of fairness, and I suspect you do too.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. Unfortunately, I had no examples such as this to clarify my words. :headbang:

I've got a question for you, though, if you're willing to answer it. I gather that you yourself are religious, correct? You mentioned that you worked at your local Parish's office, which is why I'm assuming you have some sort of religious connections. Regardless, if I'm wrong, correct me, but give your opinion either way. I am curious as to how you are able to follow a religion so steeped in deceit and controversy. I understand that belief all in itself can be a strong motivator, but are there any specific motivations that keep you bonded to your faith? As a devout Athiest, I'd like to get some insight into how someone could overlook the overwhelming problems concerning the Church and continue to follow it's teachings despite the example some of it's representatives have set.

Of course, if this question is too personal or blatant, you need not answer.

I'm sorry. Is there a point to this?

I think he's trying to write some metal lyrics.

I think he's trying to write some metal lyrics.

PFffffffhahahaa.

Why do you people even bother to argue? It's doubtful you'll convert your opponents to atheism or catholocism or cthuluism over a thread on the internet. :headbang:

Oh, and I think that the moderate/left-wing christians and moderate agnostics are right, and everyone else is on crack when they write their opinions. But I could be wrong.

Why do you people even bother to argue? It's doubtful you'll convert your opponents to atheism or catholocism or cthuluism over a thread on the internet. :headbang:

Oh, and I think that the moderate/left-wing christians and moderate agnostics are right, and everyone else is on crack when they write their opinions. But I could be wrong.

Why do you people even bother to argue? It's doubtful you'll convert your opponents to atheism or catholocism or cthuluism over a thread on the internet. :headbang:

Oh, and I think that the moderate/left-wing christians and moderate agnostics are right, and everyone else is on crack when they write their opinions. But I could be wrong.

We're not trying to "convert" anyone; what we've been doing for the past few pages (if you'd cared to read) is having a rather civil, friendly discussion over religious and political views.
I'm not a moderate. I'm not a Christian. I'm not an Agnostic.
Am I on crack?

Technically what I meant, sorry for not making it clearer. All you really need to do to see that these kinds of societies are more productive and have higher morale is to look at a Socialist-goverened country or region...sure, the people don't set toes out of line, but mainly because they've never had a chance to think anything different in their lives. Look at the situation in France, for crying out loud. Riots are rampant, people are kept in "okay" living conditions when their intelligence and ambition should allow them "excellent" ones because the money they make is taxed to death, and it is nearly impossible to fire, hire, quit, or be hired due to the staunch laws they have in place. How does that speak for businesses? A rude receptionist? Sorry, you lose business, as she cannot be fired. A stocker with back problems? Sorry, deal with it.
It's just not a productive way to run a business, much less a country...

Mm, such as? I'm curious, as I've been spouting off my views rather vehemently (as I'm inclined to do when given a chance, haha) so what're your specifics as far as politics?

You can look at the NS Player Profiles thread that's been stickied to find that. A handy thread, that one.

But by this point we're getting so off-topic I'd rather discuss the issues you've raised in a different thread.

I've got a question for you, though, if you're willing to answer it. I gather that you yourself are religious, correct? You mentioned that you worked at your local Parish's office, which is why I'm assuming you have some sort of religious connections. Regardless, if I'm wrong, correct me, but give your opinion either way. I am curious as to how you are able to follow a religion so steeped in deceit and controversy. I understand that belief all in itself can be a strong motivator, but are there any specific motivations that keep you bonded to your faith? As a devout Athiest, I'd like to get some insight into how someone could overlook the overwhelming problems concerning the Church and continue to follow it's teachings despite the example some of it's representatives have set.

Of course, if this question is too personal or blatant, you need not answer.

It is quite personal, but I'm willing to answer.

I have a few reasons. As you said, belief is a particularly strong motivator, specifically the belief in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. The sense of community, the more (in my opinion) well-developed if not always correct theology, the incredibly beautiful and meaningful liturgy, my interest in having good people reform the Church from within, advocating Christian unity and ecumenicism, etc.

Basically, I think the Church is going to be around for a while, and my and other good people's leaving is only going to further exacerbate the problem.