Comments
Posted by Rick :: 
:: 
:: Jan 07, 2005 12:19pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 12:19pmwhen christ--stains learn to finally accept and respect others views and beliefs without spewing off their hatefull rehortic and condemming people for those beliefs, the world will be a better place
Oh, the irony.
Oh, the irony.
Posted by frothynoodlesoup :: 
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 07:26pm
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 07:26pmHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
yeah, that is pretty ironic.
yeah, that is pretty ironic.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 12:21pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 12:21pmIn case you didn't know it, the 10 commandments were returned to the owner that purchased it in the first place, as it should be. The rock is currently making a tour of america for all the whackos that think this rock can save them from impending doom to come an worship this idol.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 12:24pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 12:24pmAlso, I forgot to add this, your example 2:
this past christ--mas season,a low level uproar occured in a few towns around AMERICA about CHRIS-STAIN based symbols and religious propanda being put up for the yearly festivites, and in city halls,schools,Librarys, ETC.
This happens every year and has for as long as I can remember. I am only 32 but I can't remember a year that somebody didn't pitch a fit somewhere. Most of the time it is actually non-christians complaining about having a nativity scene or something similar on the court house or city hall lawns but it works both ways, because the christians will also pitch fits if santa makes his way close to or in place of the nativity scene.
this past christ--mas season,a low level uproar occured in a few towns around AMERICA about CHRIS-STAIN based symbols and religious propanda being put up for the yearly festivites, and in city halls,schools,Librarys, ETC.
This happens every year and has for as long as I can remember. I am only 32 but I can't remember a year that somebody didn't pitch a fit somewhere. Most of the time it is actually non-christians complaining about having a nativity scene or something similar on the court house or city hall lawns but it works both ways, because the christians will also pitch fits if santa makes his way close to or in place of the nativity scene.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 12:47pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 12:47pmI agree with you about Christmas Santa. I think all holidays should be removed from the workplace and the government. Think of all the money this nation could save if it quite decorating the city for Christmas and other silly holidays. Think of all the money that could be spent somewhere else if parades were not done anymore.
I am not joking when I say this, I think all holidays should be removed from the workplace and you can have like 5 extra vacation days to use when you want. If you want to use one of those days on Christmas fine, on Thanksgiving fine, but no longer will we continue to celebrate dead people and "religious" holidays and labor day and any one of the other bazillion days you don't have to go to work. You get Saturday and Sunday off every week (for most people) if you want more use one of your 5 extra vacation days. You don't want religion in your government let's remove it from your workplace as well, but when we do it we need to remove all the others as well President's day, Martin Luther King's Birthday, Independance day, Good Friday, let's just get rid of them all and keep any symbolism off our government buildings.
I am not joking when I say this, I think all holidays should be removed from the workplace and you can have like 5 extra vacation days to use when you want. If you want to use one of those days on Christmas fine, on Thanksgiving fine, but no longer will we continue to celebrate dead people and "religious" holidays and labor day and any one of the other bazillion days you don't have to go to work. You get Saturday and Sunday off every week (for most people) if you want more use one of your 5 extra vacation days. You don't want religion in your government let's remove it from your workplace as well, but when we do it we need to remove all the others as well President's day, Martin Luther King's Birthday, Independance day, Good Friday, let's just get rid of them all and keep any symbolism off our government buildings.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 01:21pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 01:21pmI'm glad you liked the post, Santa, but in the future, I'd appreciate it if you could tone down the "christ-stain" thing, it's not really appropriate or helpful. If this means I get a lump of coal next year, so be it.
Posted by Damion :: :: 
:: Jan 07, 2005 06:38pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 06:38pmAlso, I think we all got the point the first time you said "christ--stain," what with the two dashes to emphasize your cleverness (I remember doing word jumbles, once... God, I miss gradeschool). A running gag can get old quickly when not in the hands of a professional.
Posted by U. N. Owen :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 10:33am
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 10:33amAmen to that.... wait, I just realized that was totally inappropriate.
Posted by JK :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 11:52am
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 11:52amWell said, Ryland! You summed it up perfectly. Or as a friend of mine is fond of saying, "God in Heaven, save me from your followers!!"
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 12:21pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 12:21pmExceedingly well said Ryland. I feel the same way, and I appreciate you summing it up in such a concise manner - certainly much better that I've been stumbling along with lately.
Kudos to you!
Kudos to you!
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 12:41pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 12:41pmActually well said Ryland, I see no reason to cram anybody's beliefs down others throats. I will be happy to share my beliefs with anybody but I'm not going to attack you with them. For the most part I see you doing the same things although I have seen you lash out at christians before (the ones you lash out against are usually the whackos).
I don't get the big fuss over all the nonsense. Who cares if you have a 50' cross at the innaguration? Who cares if you have the nativity scene at city hall? I don't believe that either of these would rank very high in the "pick your battles" categories. I also doubt that anybody has ever driven by a city hall scene and it changed their life, same thing for the cross in/at a parade.
For every person like you and me there are 2-3 people that just want to lash out at the other side. You make an argument for consideration of others no matter what side you are on and the first response is hateful.
We are all going to be here, and neither side will ultimately win (unless the christians are right) so might as well try to live peacebly together.
I don't get the big fuss over all the nonsense. Who cares if you have a 50' cross at the innaguration? Who cares if you have the nativity scene at city hall? I don't believe that either of these would rank very high in the "pick your battles" categories. I also doubt that anybody has ever driven by a city hall scene and it changed their life, same thing for the cross in/at a parade.
For every person like you and me there are 2-3 people that just want to lash out at the other side. You make an argument for consideration of others no matter what side you are on and the first response is hateful.
We are all going to be here, and neither side will ultimately win (unless the christians are right) so might as well try to live peacebly together.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 01:13pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 01:13pmTrust you to beat me to the punch, Ryland...
I had a big, long response for this very topic, complete with a minor disagreement or two, but I realize that I am either preaching to the choir, or I am just going to piss off/confuse somebody. Plus this is one of those topics that cannot be easily summed up in a few short paragraphs -- this is a debate that has raged for as long as there has been religion, which is to say a very long time.
However, I would like to relate a few stories that might help illustrate what I have come to expect from those that would call themselves Christians:
1. I was processing through a mobility line, preparing to go TDY to someplace or other for the military. Now, for those of you that do not know what a mobility processing line is, it is a series of stations that allows you to take care of all things personal and professional prior to departing for a long trip. This includes legal matters (wills, powers-of-attorney, etc.), medical matters (all shots up-to-date), family matters, etc. Now normally there are a few stations that we do not need to stop at, one of those being the chaplain. This one processing line, though, we had instructions that every station had to be visited, whether we needed to or not (kind of stupid if you were a single person with no dependents and you had to stop at the Family Support station). As an atheist, I had no reason to stop at the Chaplain station: I was in no need of spiritual guidance or anything else of religious value. But stop I did, and the chaplain looked at my dogtags to check my religious preference, which at that time said No Rel Pref (code for "atheist", as way back when we were not allowed to have atheist on our dogtags -- that has since changed). Discovering that I was atheist, he promptly asked, "Well, in the unfortunate event of your death, how do you wish to be buried: face up or face down?"
The line stopped dead. The chaplain's comment was totally, completely out of line, which gave me the courage to say what I did in response: "Neither. You're going to cremate my ass and choke on it." I then grabbed my dogtags from his rather shocked hand and walked away, fully expecting to be court-martialed for my reaction. I guess the chaplain chose not to press charges of insubordination, seeing as he had already crossed the line earlier.
2. I was sitting in the dorm, watching TV one Sunday afternoon, when one of the other residents came into the TV room, having returned from church. He had in tow a couple of buddies from his church, and upon seeing me announced to them (rather loudly as I recall): "This guy is an atheist!" All three of them proceeded to tell me I was damned and going to Hell if I didn't find salvation, etc.
Once again, the line was crossed, and I took all three to task, and then I took the ringleader aside and let him know in no uncertain terms what would happen if he should ever pull that shit again.
3. There was a woman whom I worked with who asked me to attend church with her, so I did. The sermon was about some verses in the Bible (I can't remember which ones), covering the responsibilities of the faithful. One of those responsibilities was proselytizing: If someone was known to have a faith different from your own (or no faith at all), it would be just as sinful to let them continue without attempting to save them from their "evil" ways as their "evil" ways are sinful.
Needless to say, the ride home was uncomfortable on my part, because if ever there was a sermon that seemed to have me singled out, it was that one, and it didn't help that this woman who asked me to go to church with her was one of my best friends whom I loved a great deal. And how did she handle it? By saying that she did not agree with that at all, that "free will" was also encouraged, and that there were times that the contradictions bothered her. But in no way was she going to try to convert me just to save her own soul (she was fully comfortable in the way she lived her life and had her own set of spiritual values), and that she loved and respected me for who I was.
Now I ask you all: Who among those three was the real Christian? It seems to me the answer is both clear, and yet not-so-clear, which is what I have come to expect from Christians...
I had a big, long response for this very topic, complete with a minor disagreement or two, but I realize that I am either preaching to the choir, or I am just going to piss off/confuse somebody. Plus this is one of those topics that cannot be easily summed up in a few short paragraphs -- this is a debate that has raged for as long as there has been religion, which is to say a very long time.
However, I would like to relate a few stories that might help illustrate what I have come to expect from those that would call themselves Christians:
1. I was processing through a mobility line, preparing to go TDY to someplace or other for the military. Now, for those of you that do not know what a mobility processing line is, it is a series of stations that allows you to take care of all things personal and professional prior to departing for a long trip. This includes legal matters (wills, powers-of-attorney, etc.), medical matters (all shots up-to-date), family matters, etc. Now normally there are a few stations that we do not need to stop at, one of those being the chaplain. This one processing line, though, we had instructions that every station had to be visited, whether we needed to or not (kind of stupid if you were a single person with no dependents and you had to stop at the Family Support station). As an atheist, I had no reason to stop at the Chaplain station: I was in no need of spiritual guidance or anything else of religious value. But stop I did, and the chaplain looked at my dogtags to check my religious preference, which at that time said No Rel Pref (code for "atheist", as way back when we were not allowed to have atheist on our dogtags -- that has since changed). Discovering that I was atheist, he promptly asked, "Well, in the unfortunate event of your death, how do you wish to be buried: face up or face down?"
The line stopped dead. The chaplain's comment was totally, completely out of line, which gave me the courage to say what I did in response: "Neither. You're going to cremate my ass and choke on it." I then grabbed my dogtags from his rather shocked hand and walked away, fully expecting to be court-martialed for my reaction. I guess the chaplain chose not to press charges of insubordination, seeing as he had already crossed the line earlier.
2. I was sitting in the dorm, watching TV one Sunday afternoon, when one of the other residents came into the TV room, having returned from church. He had in tow a couple of buddies from his church, and upon seeing me announced to them (rather loudly as I recall): "This guy is an atheist!" All three of them proceeded to tell me I was damned and going to Hell if I didn't find salvation, etc.
Once again, the line was crossed, and I took all three to task, and then I took the ringleader aside and let him know in no uncertain terms what would happen if he should ever pull that shit again.
3. There was a woman whom I worked with who asked me to attend church with her, so I did. The sermon was about some verses in the Bible (I can't remember which ones), covering the responsibilities of the faithful. One of those responsibilities was proselytizing: If someone was known to have a faith different from your own (or no faith at all), it would be just as sinful to let them continue without attempting to save them from their "evil" ways as their "evil" ways are sinful.
Needless to say, the ride home was uncomfortable on my part, because if ever there was a sermon that seemed to have me singled out, it was that one, and it didn't help that this woman who asked me to go to church with her was one of my best friends whom I loved a great deal. And how did she handle it? By saying that she did not agree with that at all, that "free will" was also encouraged, and that there were times that the contradictions bothered her. But in no way was she going to try to convert me just to save her own soul (she was fully comfortable in the way she lived her life and had her own set of spiritual values), and that she loved and respected me for who I was.
Now I ask you all: Who among those three was the real Christian? It seems to me the answer is both clear, and yet not-so-clear, which is what I have come to expect from Christians...
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 02:07pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 02:07pmI am not trying to play down the actions of the first two groups of idiots, they were wrong period. Especially the chaplain, he should have known better and I think it's funny what you did back to him. Nothing is quite as funny as some jerk getting treated in kind.
The third woman is a touchy situation. In one breath she is saying that she believes what is being taught and in another breath she is saying that what she believes is wrong. She tried to verbalize that the proselytizing is wrong but she already did it to some point by inviting you to church. She was making an attempt, and probably better than most, because she actually got you to attend church. That was a step in the direction she wanted you to go and one that the first two groups of people would not be able to do because they had severed any reaching out attempts by being jerks. I really believe that those that pull the stunts in the first two examples will one day have to answer for the blood on their hands for pushing people away from Christ instead of helping show the way.
From what I have read we are supposed to proselytize but in a kind and careing way. We are supposed to be gentle with our approach not standing in a parade yelling "Fags burn in hell" or ridiculing others for their beliefs. It says in the Bible that we are supposed to let our lives be an example to others. In other words we are supposed to live the christian life (which includes telling others) and have non-believers wonder why we are different or happy or what makes our lives the way they are and that will help open others up to what we have that they don't. We are not supposed to tear down or cheapen somebody elses life in order to win them over, kind of the ol win more with honey than you can with vinegar.
Finally, just from my previous experience anytime you go to church and you are living contrary to the teachings of the Bible it feels like if ever there was a sermon that seemed to have me singled out, it was that one. I can remember before being a believer and going with girlfreinds that it always felt like they had planned the sermon when they found out I was coming.
The third woman is a touchy situation. In one breath she is saying that she believes what is being taught and in another breath she is saying that what she believes is wrong. She tried to verbalize that the proselytizing is wrong but she already did it to some point by inviting you to church. She was making an attempt, and probably better than most, because she actually got you to attend church. That was a step in the direction she wanted you to go and one that the first two groups of people would not be able to do because they had severed any reaching out attempts by being jerks. I really believe that those that pull the stunts in the first two examples will one day have to answer for the blood on their hands for pushing people away from Christ instead of helping show the way.
From what I have read we are supposed to proselytize but in a kind and careing way. We are supposed to be gentle with our approach not standing in a parade yelling "Fags burn in hell" or ridiculing others for their beliefs. It says in the Bible that we are supposed to let our lives be an example to others. In other words we are supposed to live the christian life (which includes telling others) and have non-believers wonder why we are different or happy or what makes our lives the way they are and that will help open others up to what we have that they don't. We are not supposed to tear down or cheapen somebody elses life in order to win them over, kind of the ol win more with honey than you can with vinegar.
Finally, just from my previous experience anytime you go to church and you are living contrary to the teachings of the Bible it feels like if ever there was a sermon that seemed to have me singled out, it was that one. I can remember before being a believer and going with girlfreinds that it always felt like they had planned the sermon when they found out I was coming.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 02:34pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 02:34pmThat's why I said it was both clear, yet not-so-clear. The first two cases were, indeed, assholes. But my lady friend, though I know she meant well, could tell that the sermon was one designed to make me uncomfortable, and that isn't what she wanted to do. Rather, she just wanted me to see another aspect of her life (we were very close).
Her apology to me afterwards mitigated any ill feelings I may have had over the whole thing, but it goes to show that even the best intentions lay the groundwork for that road to Hell.
As I've said, it is never that simple...
Her apology to me afterwards mitigated any ill feelings I may have had over the whole thing, but it goes to show that even the best intentions lay the groundwork for that road to Hell.
As I've said, it is never that simple...
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 02:55pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 02:55pmSir Craig, your friend sounds like a wonderful person - the kind of Christian I'd enjoy spending time with. How fortunate are we who have those kinds of people in our life!
I do not understand why it is wrong to question the teachings of one's church. Did not Martin Luther do this? If church members had not questioned what they were taught, there would be nothing but Catholics - wasn't that how the Protestant portion of Christianity was born?
It comes down to whether one believes that the bible should be followed word for word (egads!), or whether one believes that the bible is a book of wisdom to live by. Is one less Christian if one believes the latter? I don't think so.
If one is damned because they don't follow exactly what was written and changed and edited over the years, that's pretty sad. The bible has pieces of sound advice in it, for sure, but I don't feel comfortable having it run my life, and that's why I do not participate in the faith. I just don't think that all the writings of people who lived a couple of milinea ago are valid in my life today.
You are right though - like everything else in life, religion has its grey areas, and those are the things that people continually tussle over. I don't think there's ever a "right" answer. One must find their way, and do the best they can, guided by whatever belief system they follow.
I do not understand why it is wrong to question the teachings of one's church. Did not Martin Luther do this? If church members had not questioned what they were taught, there would be nothing but Catholics - wasn't that how the Protestant portion of Christianity was born?
It comes down to whether one believes that the bible should be followed word for word (egads!), or whether one believes that the bible is a book of wisdom to live by. Is one less Christian if one believes the latter? I don't think so.
If one is damned because they don't follow exactly what was written and changed and edited over the years, that's pretty sad. The bible has pieces of sound advice in it, for sure, but I don't feel comfortable having it run my life, and that's why I do not participate in the faith. I just don't think that all the writings of people who lived a couple of milinea ago are valid in my life today.
You are right though - like everything else in life, religion has its grey areas, and those are the things that people continually tussle over. I don't think there's ever a "right" answer. One must find their way, and do the best they can, guided by whatever belief system they follow.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 03:28pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 03:28pmLinda is a wonderful woman -- she and I have been friends for ages. And I know that much of what Linda believes in regards to her faith is more spiritual than religious in nature. The church she attends (Methodist, I believe) comes closest to matching her own personal beliefs, but she is in no way constrained by them.
There was one time she and I attended an adult Sunday school class, and the topic was about abortion. Predictably, those leading the class spoke more about protesting the clinics than actually addressing any issues of consequence, and afterwards Linda and I spoke about it and concluded that, rather than protest clinics and make nuisances of themselves, it would make more sense to ensure that kids (as well as adults) had access to better, more comprehensive sex education as opposed to simple "abstinence only" BS. In her belief structure, knowledge is just as important as faith.
Linda lives a life more in line with what Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) should stand for, and the irony is it's because she follows her heart rather than dogma. It's just too bad more people can't be like her (religous zealot and atheist alike)...
There was one time she and I attended an adult Sunday school class, and the topic was about abortion. Predictably, those leading the class spoke more about protesting the clinics than actually addressing any issues of consequence, and afterwards Linda and I spoke about it and concluded that, rather than protest clinics and make nuisances of themselves, it would make more sense to ensure that kids (as well as adults) had access to better, more comprehensive sex education as opposed to simple "abstinence only" BS. In her belief structure, knowledge is just as important as faith.
Linda lives a life more in line with what Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) should stand for, and the irony is it's because she follows her heart rather than dogma. It's just too bad more people can't be like her (religous zealot and atheist alike)...
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 03:31pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 03:31pmBy the way, Linda enjoys clogging and playing the bagpipes.
If she isn't the perfect woman, I don't know who is...
(She would kill me if she knew I was saying this about her.)
If she isn't the perfect woman, I don't know who is...
(She would kill me if she knew I was saying this about her.)
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 03:52pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 03:52pmShe plays the bagpipes!? Now there's a woman I could definitely respect and like!! Nothing like the sound of the pipes skirling on a foggy morn to get the blood racing in one's veins! :) Not so sure about the clogging - I enjoy the music but the dancing looks difficult.
I doubt that she would kill you - she's probably miss you too much if you were gone.
Her take on the abortion issue is a good one. Work on the cause of the problem, don't just stand around and complain about it. I'm with you both on this one. While I would never deny anyone the ability to get an abortion, I'd sure love to see the need drop to zero, due to good education and personal responsibility.
I doubt that she would kill you - she's probably miss you too much if you were gone.
Her take on the abortion issue is a good one. Work on the cause of the problem, don't just stand around and complain about it. I'm with you both on this one. While I would never deny anyone the ability to get an abortion, I'd sure love to see the need drop to zero, due to good education and personal responsibility.
Posted by Jane Smith :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 10:30pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 10:30pmthey don't follow exactly what was written and changed and edited over the years, that's pretty sad. The bible has pieces of sound advice in it, for sure, but I don't feel comfortable having it run my life, and that's why I do not participate in the faith. I just don't think that all the writings of people who lived a couple of milinea ago are valid in my life today.
Please tell me how many years you've studied tha all the books of the Bible, which seminary you've attended or what degrees you hold which make you an expert in Biblical matters.
Please tell me how many years you've studied tha all the books of the Bible, which seminary you've attended or what degrees you hold which make you an expert in Biblical matters.
Posted by Valacosa :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 11:38pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 11:38pmJane Smith,
Please tell me how many years you've studied all the books of the Bible, which seminary you've attended or what degrees you hold which make you an expert in Biblical matters.
In addition, the fact you didn't actually refute anything she said won't be lost on anyone here.
Please tell me how many years you've studied all the books of the Bible, which seminary you've attended or what degrees you hold which make you an expert in Biblical matters.
In addition, the fact you didn't actually refute anything she said won't be lost on anyone here.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:02am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:02amMs. Smith, Rick and I have covered this subject just recently, and frankly, I don't want to go over the whole thing again. He and I found a way to disagree without hating one another (at least I hope so Rick); perhaps you'll find it in your good Christian heart to do the same.
While I don't have a degree that makes me an expert in biblical matters (nor would I want one - there are so many other mythologies that are much more interesting in which one could acquire a degree), I have lived 50 years on this earth, and spent the ones that I could read educating myself. One does not need a degree pertaining to the bible to research and learn. I've drawn my own conclusions based on that what I have experienced and observed, and they are just that, my own conclusions. In no way am I demanding that you accept them as your own.
You'll notice that the sentence you took out of context started out "If one is damned because...". I deliberately left that open, so that it could be explained by someone who sees it in a different light. I don't see your post as an explanation...it seems more like a gauntlet thrown down. Yet in your next post, you say "So, why can't we just agree to disagree and give peace a chance, huh?" Apparently it's all right for you to jump in and give your opinion, but you don't want to hear anything further from anyone else.
I always was under the impression that Christians were not supposed to judge (that being left up to your god), and were to bring the unsaved gently to the light of Jesus. Your posts just don't seem very gentle to me...rather, they merely confirm the points that Ryland made in the beginning of this thread.
While I don't have a degree that makes me an expert in biblical matters (nor would I want one - there are so many other mythologies that are much more interesting in which one could acquire a degree), I have lived 50 years on this earth, and spent the ones that I could read educating myself. One does not need a degree pertaining to the bible to research and learn. I've drawn my own conclusions based on that what I have experienced and observed, and they are just that, my own conclusions. In no way am I demanding that you accept them as your own.
You'll notice that the sentence you took out of context started out "If one is damned because...". I deliberately left that open, so that it could be explained by someone who sees it in a different light. I don't see your post as an explanation...it seems more like a gauntlet thrown down. Yet in your next post, you say "So, why can't we just agree to disagree and give peace a chance, huh?" Apparently it's all right for you to jump in and give your opinion, but you don't want to hear anything further from anyone else.
I always was under the impression that Christians were not supposed to judge (that being left up to your god), and were to bring the unsaved gently to the light of Jesus. Your posts just don't seem very gentle to me...rather, they merely confirm the points that Ryland made in the beginning of this thread.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:23am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:23amI guess I could repost most of her post and say the same to it as I said to santa. Oh, the irony.
well said though redraven. we each have our opinions no need to hate somebody else for theirs or we simply cheapen our own.
well said though redraven. we each have our opinions no need to hate somebody else for theirs or we simply cheapen our own.
Posted by Valacosa :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:29pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:29pmRedraven,
You're 50?
And you actually use the internet for pleasure?
I am in awe.
You're 50?
And you actually use the internet for pleasure?
I am in awe.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 05:10am
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 05:10amYes, I know, I'm a geek. And damned proud of it. :)
We have 4 computers in this household, running through a network (set up by my 17 year old son), and there's always a lot of gaming/rpgs going on (Warcraft 3 is awesome). We watch a lot of Japanese anime - all of us are big fans of Hayao Miyazaki (Spirited Away; Princess Mononoke; My Neighbor Totoro) - much of it subtitled or untranslated (and not the Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh variety). We spend time chatting with computer friends (via ICQ, YM or AIM), as well as reading the news, doing research or catching up on the latest ABAHC posts.
What can I say? I love computers and technology, and I believe it's critical that one have strong computer skills in today's world.
Is that unusual for someone who is 50?
We have 4 computers in this household, running through a network (set up by my 17 year old son), and there's always a lot of gaming/rpgs going on (Warcraft 3 is awesome). We watch a lot of Japanese anime - all of us are big fans of Hayao Miyazaki (Spirited Away; Princess Mononoke; My Neighbor Totoro) - much of it subtitled or untranslated (and not the Pokemon or Yu-Gi-Oh variety). We spend time chatting with computer friends (via ICQ, YM or AIM), as well as reading the news, doing research or catching up on the latest ABAHC posts.
What can I say? I love computers and technology, and I believe it's critical that one have strong computer skills in today's world.
Is that unusual for someone who is 50?
Posted by Valacosa :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 06:49pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 06:49pmIn a word, yes.
Based on my (admittedly limited) experience, most of the people in your age group get the people in my age group to set the clocks on their microwaves. That's not to say there aren't exceptions - I once met a 74-year-old who was surprisingly computer literate (Though I think he was a retired electrical engineer or something).
I wish more people weren't afraid of technology. You're probably better off than most of the people my age.
To save you the trouble of asking, I'm 21 and currently attending university in Waterloo, Ontario.
Based on my (admittedly limited) experience, most of the people in your age group get the people in my age group to set the clocks on their microwaves. That's not to say there aren't exceptions - I once met a 74-year-old who was surprisingly computer literate (Though I think he was a retired electrical engineer or something).
I wish more people weren't afraid of technology. You're probably better off than most of the people my age.
To save you the trouble of asking, I'm 21 and currently attending university in Waterloo, Ontario.
Posted by Brad :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 02:09pm
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 02:09pmMy 91-year-old grandfather was rather pissed when he discovered the assisted living center he was moving into did not offer high-speed internet access. We got that fixed up right away! :-)
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 02:52pm
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 02:52pmThat is way kewl Brad. Bet your grandfather is a character. :)
Posted by frothynoodlesoup :: :: :: Jan 13, 2005 05:12pm
:: :: Jan 13, 2005 05:12pmHey Brad. I dont want to be a buzz kill, or sound asshole-ish, but my last job was a manager at a home health care firm... watch out for your grandfather, and make sure they're treating him good. In my experiences working with the elderly and the mentally challenged, about three quarters of the people who worked for me were crack heads. One of them even hired a prostitute for one of my clients.
Posted by David S :: :: :: Jan 13, 2005 07:25pm
:: :: Jan 13, 2005 07:25pm"One of them even hired a prostitute for one of my clients."
What's so bad about that? I'd call that good service.
What's so bad about that? I'd call that good service.
Posted by Jane Smith :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 10:27pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 10:27pmWARNING! WARNING! Christian wacko approaching.
"Who among those three was the real Christian?" Interesting question for someone who doesn't want to understand what we believe.
"Well, in the unfortunate event of your death, how do you wish to be buried: face up or face down?" And this offends you because....?
rather loudly as I recall)" you don't seem to mind others knowing you are a-the-ist, so who cares if they were loud?
"let him know in no uncertain terms what would happen if he should ever pull that shit again." I cannot understand why an a-the-ist is bothered by Christian beliefs.
Why are you so disdainful? Do you perhaps have an inkling that there is Absolute Truth? Do these Christians with their outfront beliefs make you feel uncomfortable?
HMMMMMMM...
I don't care whether you believe the Truth or not. It's not up to me. We do care about non-believers because we know where you will end up and how much more fulfilling your life could be here, but the choice is yours. So, why can't we just agree to disagree and give peace a chance, huh?
"Who among those three was the real Christian?" Interesting question for someone who doesn't want to understand what we believe.
"Well, in the unfortunate event of your death, how do you wish to be buried: face up or face down?" And this offends you because....?
rather loudly as I recall)" you don't seem to mind others knowing you are a-the-ist, so who cares if they were loud?
"let him know in no uncertain terms what would happen if he should ever pull that shit again." I cannot understand why an a-the-ist is bothered by Christian beliefs.
Why are you so disdainful? Do you perhaps have an inkling that there is Absolute Truth? Do these Christians with their outfront beliefs make you feel uncomfortable?
HMMMMMMM...
I don't care whether you believe the Truth or not. It's not up to me. We do care about non-believers because we know where you will end up and how much more fulfilling your life could be here, but the choice is yours. So, why can't we just agree to disagree and give peace a chance, huh?
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 11:10pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 11:10pmI hate jumping in on things, so I'll leave the meat to Sir Craig, but I do have a question -- why the need to split up the syllables in atheist? Do you do this with man-y oth-er words?
Also -- how are you sure you have the greater Truth? Perhaps your need to defend your faith here is a sign of your own insecurities?
HMMMMMMM...
Also -- how are you sure you have the greater Truth? Perhaps your need to defend your faith here is a sign of your own insecurities?
HMMMMMMM...
Posted by Valacosa :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 11:40pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 11:40pm"...why the need to split up the syllables in atheist?"
She must have observed how Santa used the term "CHRIS-STAIN" and believed that to be admirable behaviour.
She must have observed how Santa used the term "CHRIS-STAIN" and believed that to be admirable behaviour.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:58am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:58amDon't be stupid you know it's o-ther. How is anybody going to take you seriously now?
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:06am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:06am*sigh* I really shouldn't expose how OCD I really am, but... My OCD won't allow me not to. I actually double-checked this before I posted it, with Dictionary.com. Analyze this fact enough and you'll get a good idea of the state of my sex life.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:10am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:10amBwa-ha-ha-ha! That kills me!
(English major humor - it just doesn't get any better.)
(English major humor - it just doesn't get any better.)
Posted by Valacosa :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 12:15am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 12:15am"Interesting question for someone who doesn't want to understand what we believe."
Maybe I should let him speak for himself, but he's not here. I am, and I'm going to raise a very good question: if he didn't "want to understand what you believe", then why would he have gone to the church in the first place?
"And this offends you because....?"
Don't play dumb. You know damn well the pastor was trying to be inflamatory. Are you offended by my use of the word "damn?" If so, why?
"you don't seem to mind others knowing you are a-the-ist, so who cares if they were loud?"
Let's see if I can knock some empathy into you. HEY EVERYONE! LOOK OVER HERE! THIS ONE'S A CHRISTIAN! (Points mockingly) Would you enjoy that?
"I cannot understand why an a-the-ist is bothered by Christian beliefs." (In response to the comment, "...let him know in no uncertain terms what would happen if he should ever pull that shit again.")
I know too many good Christians to believe your implicit assertion that public taunting and mocking are "Christian Beliefs"...because that's essentially what you said!
Preemptive strike: No doubt you're going to attack my use of the phrase "good Christians". By that I mean not only decent people regardless of their religion, but willing to have intelligent conversations without the aim of converting anyone.
"Do these Christians with their outfront beliefs make you feel uncomfortable?"
I know Christians with "outfront beliefs" who also aren't dicks about it. Adhering to a certain religion does not bestow upon you the right to act like an ass. Has it ever occured to you how pompous proselytization is? Do you really think Christians know some "Absolute Truth", and the only reason we aren't all Christian is because we haven't heard it? NO!
"We do care about non-believers because we know where you will end up..."
Want to feel superior? Allude to the fact your enemy is going to Hell! C'mon, just say it! It almost seems as if you're wishing him into Hell. Isn't there a rule against that?
Besides, you can't know anyone is going to Hell, this place you cannot prove exists. Ah yes, you have a book that says it exists, and you're convinced said book is infallible. There are Muslims, Jews, and Mormons who think their (extremely similar but different) versions of your book are also infallible. Do you know you're right? Do you know they're wrong? Can you prove it? Maybe before you answer, you should look up what "begging the question" is. (i.e. "The Bible says the Bible is true, therefore the Bible is true" is a logical fallacy.)
"So, why can't we just agree to disagree and give peace a chance, huh?"
Translation: Now that I'm done zinging you, kindly shut up.
I welcome a response, and be sure to address that last question I posed. How is your infallible book correct while "their" contradictory infallible book is wrong?
Maybe I should let him speak for himself, but he's not here. I am, and I'm going to raise a very good question: if he didn't "want to understand what you believe", then why would he have gone to the church in the first place?
"And this offends you because....?"
Don't play dumb. You know damn well the pastor was trying to be inflamatory. Are you offended by my use of the word "damn?" If so, why?
"you don't seem to mind others knowing you are a-the-ist, so who cares if they were loud?"
Let's see if I can knock some empathy into you. HEY EVERYONE! LOOK OVER HERE! THIS ONE'S A CHRISTIAN! (Points mockingly) Would you enjoy that?
"I cannot understand why an a-the-ist is bothered by Christian beliefs." (In response to the comment, "...let him know in no uncertain terms what would happen if he should ever pull that shit again.")
I know too many good Christians to believe your implicit assertion that public taunting and mocking are "Christian Beliefs"...because that's essentially what you said!
Preemptive strike: No doubt you're going to attack my use of the phrase "good Christians". By that I mean not only decent people regardless of their religion, but willing to have intelligent conversations without the aim of converting anyone.
"Do these Christians with their outfront beliefs make you feel uncomfortable?"
I know Christians with "outfront beliefs" who also aren't dicks about it. Adhering to a certain religion does not bestow upon you the right to act like an ass. Has it ever occured to you how pompous proselytization is? Do you really think Christians know some "Absolute Truth", and the only reason we aren't all Christian is because we haven't heard it? NO!
"We do care about non-believers because we know where you will end up..."
Want to feel superior? Allude to the fact your enemy is going to Hell! C'mon, just say it! It almost seems as if you're wishing him into Hell. Isn't there a rule against that?
Besides, you can't know anyone is going to Hell, this place you cannot prove exists. Ah yes, you have a book that says it exists, and you're convinced said book is infallible. There are Muslims, Jews, and Mormons who think their (extremely similar but different) versions of your book are also infallible. Do you know you're right? Do you know they're wrong? Can you prove it? Maybe before you answer, you should look up what "begging the question" is. (i.e. "The Bible says the Bible is true, therefore the Bible is true" is a logical fallacy.)
"So, why can't we just agree to disagree and give peace a chance, huh?"
Translation: Now that I'm done zinging you, kindly shut up.
I welcome a response, and be sure to address that last question I posed. How is your infallible book correct while "their" contradictory infallible book is wrong?
Posted by Jane Smith :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 12:59am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 12:59am"And this offends you because....?"
Don't play dumb. You know damn well the pastor was trying to be inflamatory. Are you offended by my use of the word "damn?" If so, why?
No, not offended by the word damn. Can an atheist (so I'll stop the silly spelling since someone focused on that) use that word with any real meaning? If you don't believe that salvation and damnation are real, then why use the word at all?
enemy
Non-Christians aren't the enemy. Satan is.
wishing him into Hell. Uh, no, just stating what the New Testament says.
Now that I'm done zinging you, kindly shut up.
Oh, come on, you're putting words into my mouth, again.
Last question: do you want the long answer or the short. If I give you the long one, can you read and respond in a spirit of discussion or do you just want to be dicks about it? Short answer: faith.
Don't play dumb. You know damn well the pastor was trying to be inflamatory. Are you offended by my use of the word "damn?" If so, why?
No, not offended by the word damn. Can an atheist (so I'll stop the silly spelling since someone focused on that) use that word with any real meaning? If you don't believe that salvation and damnation are real, then why use the word at all?
enemy
Non-Christians aren't the enemy. Satan is.
wishing him into Hell. Uh, no, just stating what the New Testament says.
Now that I'm done zinging you, kindly shut up.
Oh, come on, you're putting words into my mouth, again.
Last question: do you want the long answer or the short. If I give you the long one, can you read and respond in a spirit of discussion or do you just want to be dicks about it? Short answer: faith.
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:01am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:01am"Short answer: faith."
haha... When logic fails, when evidence is nonexistant and you realize your argument can't stand under it's own weight, just shrug and mutter 'faith.'
That's a cowardly way to try to win a debate, and it makes you look foolish. I'm hoping the long answer won't be as asinine.
haha... When logic fails, when evidence is nonexistant and you realize your argument can't stand under it's own weight, just shrug and mutter 'faith.'
That's a cowardly way to try to win a debate, and it makes you look foolish. I'm hoping the long answer won't be as asinine.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:00am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:00amDamn, Val... You're scary in how close to my responses you were. And thank you for caring!
Peace out, all!
Peace out, all!
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:20am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:20amAllow me to interject a few opinions that I have and some other tid-bits of information.
Fist off I am a christian.
Secondly thanks to Jane for pitching in your "made me feel good to bash somebody else and then dissappear" comments. I am sure that you will probably never read any of the comments made back to you but just in case please feel free to refer back to the Bible to find out just how God feels about the proud and puffed up. You know the answers to most of your questions before you even asked.
Being right in no manner gives a person the right to be a jerk. Even though you and I may share similar beliefs which would make these others wrong, your approach and the approach of the people mentioned by Sir Craig has no defense. To proclaim that you believe in a loving God and that your God loves all others and then for you and the examples to do as you have done demands that you look back to the very words of Jesus: in what you have done unto the least of these you have done unto Me.
Fist off I am a christian.
Secondly thanks to Jane for pitching in your "made me feel good to bash somebody else and then dissappear" comments. I am sure that you will probably never read any of the comments made back to you but just in case please feel free to refer back to the Bible to find out just how God feels about the proud and puffed up. You know the answers to most of your questions before you even asked.
Being right in no manner gives a person the right to be a jerk. Even though you and I may share similar beliefs which would make these others wrong, your approach and the approach of the people mentioned by Sir Craig has no defense. To proclaim that you believe in a loving God and that your God loves all others and then for you and the examples to do as you have done demands that you look back to the very words of Jesus: in what you have done unto the least of these you have done unto Me.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:38am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:38amHas it ever occured to you how pompous proselytization is?
If you knew something that was good and was good for your friends would it be the right thing or the wrong thing to tell them about it? Let's use something different, if you knew that _______ store was having a great sale on TVs wouldn't you tell your friends about it so maybe they could get in on this great deal? Same thing with proselytization. If a person believes in the Bible and what is coming for those that do not believe and also know the joy that comes from the peace that God gives us it would be wrong not to share it with other. Notice I didn't say try to force it on others or attack others for their beliefs but simply to let others know about it.
As far as being able to prove that christians are right it is something that probably can not be done with a person such as yourself. You are already ready to pounce on anybody that cliams the Bible is real. It would be like arguing with a brick wall, you are simply going to bat away any proofs or truths that are tossed at you just as those that belive will bat away anything you have to say. Your mind is made up and your heart is hardened to what the Bible has to say.
Even though I have said that in the previous paragraph, here is just a little proof that I believe. Truth by definition is exclusive. By definition if 2+2=4, then 2+2 can not equal 5,6,7,8,9 or any other number, the answer excludes any other potential answer. If you believe in God, that the Bible came from God and that it is His divine word then you probably believe that the Bible is true (at least the majority of it). The Bible tells us that there is but one way to the Father and that is through the son, not Muhammad, or Confucious, or Budhism or any other way but through Jesus. By that and the previous items that truth would by definition exclude any other way to heaven and exclude that any other religion is right.
I am sure that the Muslims and Budhists and others believe that theirs is THE way as well. I have seen several books on why christianity is right and the others are wrong so I am assuming that these others have their own reasons and books why christianity is wrong and theirs is right i just haven't seen them.
I know you will probably tear down my statements but you wanted an answer so there is a little one that pretty much covers the bigger ones.
If you knew something that was good and was good for your friends would it be the right thing or the wrong thing to tell them about it? Let's use something different, if you knew that _______ store was having a great sale on TVs wouldn't you tell your friends about it so maybe they could get in on this great deal? Same thing with proselytization. If a person believes in the Bible and what is coming for those that do not believe and also know the joy that comes from the peace that God gives us it would be wrong not to share it with other. Notice I didn't say try to force it on others or attack others for their beliefs but simply to let others know about it.
As far as being able to prove that christians are right it is something that probably can not be done with a person such as yourself. You are already ready to pounce on anybody that cliams the Bible is real. It would be like arguing with a brick wall, you are simply going to bat away any proofs or truths that are tossed at you just as those that belive will bat away anything you have to say. Your mind is made up and your heart is hardened to what the Bible has to say.
Even though I have said that in the previous paragraph, here is just a little proof that I believe. Truth by definition is exclusive. By definition if 2+2=4, then 2+2 can not equal 5,6,7,8,9 or any other number, the answer excludes any other potential answer. If you believe in God, that the Bible came from God and that it is His divine word then you probably believe that the Bible is true (at least the majority of it). The Bible tells us that there is but one way to the Father and that is through the son, not Muhammad, or Confucious, or Budhism or any other way but through Jesus. By that and the previous items that truth would by definition exclude any other way to heaven and exclude that any other religion is right.
I am sure that the Muslims and Budhists and others believe that theirs is THE way as well. I have seen several books on why christianity is right and the others are wrong so I am assuming that these others have their own reasons and books why christianity is wrong and theirs is right i just haven't seen them.
I know you will probably tear down my statements but you wanted an answer so there is a little one that pretty much covers the bigger ones.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:32am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:32amActually, the Qur'an talks about Jesus (in a positive light), and holds Mary in high esteem. The Muslim faith is very tolerant of other religions, despite what the extremists in that religion would have you believe. I doubt you would find a person who is truly following the teachings of the Buddha who would hold you in disdain for your Christian belief - that's just not their way.
I have a dear friend who is a very "out" Christian. Seeing how his belief has turned his life around makes me very happy for him. When we have lunch together, he likes to pray before we eat. I always take his hand and listen to his prayer. Joining him in that moment gives me a good deal of pleasure, because I know how committed he is to his faith, and I admire him for that. I don't mind him speaking about what he believes; he is telling me about himself, not handing me a veiled threat about my soul because I am not thinking exactly the same way.
Conversely, I would not expect him to join me in my Samhain ritual, even though it is my favorite of the year. Why? First, because I have respect for his religious belief, and know he isn't educated about mine. Second, it's not critical to me to convert other people to my spiritual path. Therein lies the difference, and also the reason that non-believers tend to get so irritated with Christians. If we can accept them as they are, why can they not do the same?
Perhaps that's why this particular subject always seems to prompt such intense debate amongst us all.
I have a dear friend who is a very "out" Christian. Seeing how his belief has turned his life around makes me very happy for him. When we have lunch together, he likes to pray before we eat. I always take his hand and listen to his prayer. Joining him in that moment gives me a good deal of pleasure, because I know how committed he is to his faith, and I admire him for that. I don't mind him speaking about what he believes; he is telling me about himself, not handing me a veiled threat about my soul because I am not thinking exactly the same way.
Conversely, I would not expect him to join me in my Samhain ritual, even though it is my favorite of the year. Why? First, because I have respect for his religious belief, and know he isn't educated about mine. Second, it's not critical to me to convert other people to my spiritual path. Therein lies the difference, and also the reason that non-believers tend to get so irritated with Christians. If we can accept them as they are, why can they not do the same?
Perhaps that's why this particular subject always seems to prompt such intense debate amongst us all.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:59am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:59amYou've hit on the one sentence that sums up my problem with Christianity anymore: If we can accept them as they are, why can they not do the same? All anectdotes and pet peeves aside, that is the central issue of the whole debate, I think, for me anyway.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:59pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:59pmMohammed said, "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him." (Hadith vol. 9:57)
" No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir" (infidel). Hadith Vol. 9:50
Al-Ma'idah 5:51
O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as 'Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers etc.), they are but 'Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as 'Auliya' then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust)."
SURA 4 ; 89 "--- Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam) take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them ".
SURA 47 ; 4 "So when you meet (in JIHAD ) those who disbelieve,smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them then bind and band firmly (take them captive) ".
*The Hadith is Mohammed's sayings as recorded by Al Bukhari and is considered supplemental to the Quran
How tolerant indeed. But of course they would hold what you have to say in high regard redraven, just look for yourself.
"This is because of the deficiency of the woman's mind. " Hadith Vol. 3:826
"I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women. " Hadith Vol. 1:28
"After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women." Hadith Vol. 7:33
Your friend is living the true example of what he is supposed to. He is a light in this world. If you asked him he would probably be more than glad to share with you how God could change your life but he is not going to push it on you. If God loves us enough to give you free will then who are we to try to force it upon you? Any threat you perceive should be your own, not one from us as we are not the judges of this world.
We can accept you as you are, but based upon our beliefs we are supposed to try to show you or at the very bare minimum live the example of Christ's love for us all.
" No Muslim should be killed for killing a Kafir" (infidel). Hadith Vol. 9:50
Al-Ma'idah 5:51
O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as 'Auliya' (friends, protectors, helpers etc.), they are but 'Auliya' to one another. And if any amongst you takes them as 'Auliya' then surely he is one of them. Verily, Allah guides not those people who are the Zalimun (polytheists and wrong-doers and unjust)."
SURA 4 ; 89 "--- Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam) take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them ".
SURA 47 ; 4 "So when you meet (in JIHAD ) those who disbelieve,smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them then bind and band firmly (take them captive) ".
*The Hadith is Mohammed's sayings as recorded by Al Bukhari and is considered supplemental to the Quran
How tolerant indeed. But of course they would hold what you have to say in high regard redraven, just look for yourself.
"This is because of the deficiency of the woman's mind. " Hadith Vol. 3:826
"I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women. " Hadith Vol. 1:28
"After me I have not left any affliction more harmful to men than women." Hadith Vol. 7:33
Your friend is living the true example of what he is supposed to. He is a light in this world. If you asked him he would probably be more than glad to share with you how God could change your life but he is not going to push it on you. If God loves us enough to give you free will then who are we to try to force it upon you? Any threat you perceive should be your own, not one from us as we are not the judges of this world.
We can accept you as you are, but based upon our beliefs we are supposed to try to show you or at the very bare minimum live the example of Christ's love for us all.
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:51pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:51pmCriticizing the Qur'an in such a way is hypocritical, to say the least. To prove my point, let's play a little game. If you aren't in a playful mood, you can skip to the correct answers.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 03:09pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 03:09pmThe only criticism I offered was "How tolerant indeed". Other than that it is strictly quotes.
You linked to a satire site. It would be like me linking to The Onion as a news source.
You linked to a satire site. It would be like me linking to The Onion as a news source.
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 03:23pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 03:23pmI linked to a collection of bible verses that show just how compassionate the Christian God is. It also happens to be on one of my favorite satire sites. The Bible, then, would be the source -- though, granted, even then I might as well be quoting from a satire.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 04:43pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 04:43pmYour quotes are misrepresented. Even a basic understanding of the majority of the scriptures quoted are taken out of context. The majorit of which are also Old Testament scriptures and therfore must be overlayed with the New Testament.
I do not believe that I have tried to tear your beliefs down. Isn't it ironic that you take every opportunity to ridicule mine and the book from which I derive most of them from, and then demand that everybody respects yours?
I do not believe that I have tried to tear your beliefs down. Isn't it ironic that you take every opportunity to ridicule mine and the book from which I derive most of them from, and then demand that everybody respects yours?
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 06:51pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 06:51pm1) Matthew 5:18-19 "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." Which reiterates the point of Psalms119:151-2, "Thou art near, O LORD; and all thy commandments are truth. Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever." Basically, every letter of the bible is supposed to be considered and followed.
2) I really am sorry if I offended you. It wasn't my intention, and I'll refrain from scriptural/spiritual discussion with you, or, hell, anyone in the future if I can't do so without being offensive. I was just trying to counter your attack on Islam, and I suppose I could have done so with a bit less hostility... I wasn't trying to be hostile, but I did seem to come off that way. My sincerest apologies.
2) I really am sorry if I offended you. It wasn't my intention, and I'll refrain from scriptural/spiritual discussion with you, or, hell, anyone in the future if I can't do so without being offensive. I was just trying to counter your attack on Islam, and I suppose I could have done so with a bit less hostility... I wasn't trying to be hostile, but I did seem to come off that way. My sincerest apologies.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 11:26pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 11:26pmNo, i don't mind scriptural/spiritual discussions, just without the hostility. I did not mean to be offensive or overly defensive with you either, please speak freely and I will be happy to carry on the discussion as far as I know and then I may have to go do some research.
I need to know what I believe and why I do. The Bible says to humbly have a ready defense for your faith. Only the ignorant say that it is so and will not listen to anyone else. Maybe I have an answer for your questions or doubts that may sway your mind, maybe you have one that I need to do some real study time with to figure out why I believe the way I do and so that next time I can have that defense ready.
I need to know what I believe and why I do. The Bible says to humbly have a ready defense for your faith. Only the ignorant say that it is so and will not listen to anyone else. Maybe I have an answer for your questions or doubts that may sway your mind, maybe you have one that I need to do some real study time with to figure out why I believe the way I do and so that next time I can have that defense ready.
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 04:53am
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 04:53ameh. It's not really important. I was just saying that God is a royal bastard throughout most of the bible (no offense), and it's not fair to point out the passages that advocate death and violence in the Qur'an and act as if Christianity is more of a religion of peace (It isn't [see -- Exodus 15:3; Luke 12:51-52]). I wasn't trying to insult you or your beliefs, just reminding you about glass houses.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 12:41pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 12:41pmI understand the violent history of the church and of the old testament. It is very quick to reveal itself with even a short study of either history or of the old testament.
The New Testament is different and changed the way that people thought about sin and loving others. In the past murder was the actual killing of another person. Jesus taught that simply by hating another person you have killed them in your heart. In the past you had to actually sleep with somebody before you had committed adultery, Jesus taught that by lusting after another that you had already committed that adultery in the heart. Basically guard your emotions and thoughts early because the sin starts long before the actual acting out of it happened. Also, Jesus taught strange concepts like loving your enemies instead of hating them. That was foreign to people in that culture at that time. They thought they were justified in hating another and Jesus tried to alter that belief pattern.
The verse you link to, Luke 12:51-52 is not a verse of death and violence, it is simply pointing out that by trying to love others and speaking of Jesus others would hate you and it would divide the world. It is the same thing that happened with Martin Luther King Jr., he staged peaceful protests, not in your face rallies, and sought change, and he was hated for being a peaceful, change seeking man. Ghandi, the founder of peaceful protests, was hated by the government and others for peacefully demanding change. Jesus did the same thing and conntinues to to this day. Nobody seems to hate MLK(except your hardcore racists) or Ghandi today, in fact today they are reverred and looked upon with great admiration. Jesus attempted the same thing, to change the status quo and open a doorway to God, and yet He is hated.
I recently read a quote that I think fits most on this board appropriately. It's in a book by Phillip Yancey called What's so Amazing about Grace? I even wrote it down in a little notebook of interesting quotes I like to keep.
Author Stephen Brown notes that a veterinarian can learn a lot about a dogs owner he has never met just by observing the dog. What does the world learn about God by watching us, His followers, on Earth?
Basically, it's not Jesus' fault that people dislike Him, it's the people that claim to follow Him that tear His image down to other people.
The New Testament is different and changed the way that people thought about sin and loving others. In the past murder was the actual killing of another person. Jesus taught that simply by hating another person you have killed them in your heart. In the past you had to actually sleep with somebody before you had committed adultery, Jesus taught that by lusting after another that you had already committed that adultery in the heart. Basically guard your emotions and thoughts early because the sin starts long before the actual acting out of it happened. Also, Jesus taught strange concepts like loving your enemies instead of hating them. That was foreign to people in that culture at that time. They thought they were justified in hating another and Jesus tried to alter that belief pattern.
The verse you link to, Luke 12:51-52 is not a verse of death and violence, it is simply pointing out that by trying to love others and speaking of Jesus others would hate you and it would divide the world. It is the same thing that happened with Martin Luther King Jr., he staged peaceful protests, not in your face rallies, and sought change, and he was hated for being a peaceful, change seeking man. Ghandi, the founder of peaceful protests, was hated by the government and others for peacefully demanding change. Jesus did the same thing and conntinues to to this day. Nobody seems to hate MLK(except your hardcore racists) or Ghandi today, in fact today they are reverred and looked upon with great admiration. Jesus attempted the same thing, to change the status quo and open a doorway to God, and yet He is hated.
I recently read a quote that I think fits most on this board appropriately. It's in a book by Phillip Yancey called What's so Amazing about Grace? I even wrote it down in a little notebook of interesting quotes I like to keep.
Author Stephen Brown notes that a veterinarian can learn a lot about a dogs owner he has never met just by observing the dog. What does the world learn about God by watching us, His followers, on Earth?
Basically, it's not Jesus' fault that people dislike Him, it's the people that claim to follow Him that tear His image down to other people.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 06:22pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 06:22pmRick, your last sentence kind of sums up the crux of most of our religious discussion here, doesn't it? Many Christians make the same mistake that parents do when they tell their kids "do as I say, not as I do". It doesn't work on kids, and it certainly doesn't fly with thinking adults whom one is trying to convert.
My question is, why don't churches recognize this? Is it a money thing, or just an inability to move away from the old way of doing things? Do "younger" churches take a different approach?
My question is, why don't churches recognize this? Is it a money thing, or just an inability to move away from the old way of doing things? Do "younger" churches take a different approach?
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 07:50pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 07:50pmThe book that I am reading is discussing how the church has lost the ability to show grace to others and how it is not even really preached anymore. It questions why the church is so hard on others and on itself.
There is a story in there that really demonstrates how the church is so out of touch with what it is supposed to be. The author says this comes from a friend who works with the down-and-out in Chicago.
A prostitute came to me in wretched straits, homeless, sick, unable to buy food for her two year old daughter. Through sobs and tears, she told me she had been renting out her daugheter--two years old!-- to men interested in kinky sex. She made more renting out her daughter for an hour than she could earn on her own in a night. She had to do it, she said, to support her own drug habit. I could hardly bear hearing her sordid story. For one thing, it made me legally liable--I'm required to report cases of child abuse. I had no idea what to say to this woman.
At last I asked if she had ever thought of going to a church for help. I will never forget the look of pure, naive shock that crossed her face. "Church!" she cried. "Why would I ever go there? I was already feeling terrible about myself. They'd just make me feel worse."
This is how the church is seen as today. Instead of demonstrating the very love we are supposed to both have but also to demonstrate the church has become the condemnation of everybody including the brethren. It's as if the church goers have become comfortable just in the knowledge without the fruit to go with it. The very ones that claim to live under the dispensation of grace have turned it into a dispensation of the law and whoever appears Holy to others must be better so they look down their nose at others instead of looking for a place to share what they "know".
I don't think it is all a money thing or that it is necessarily motivated out of any particular thinking. I just think that the monster that crept into the church has not been noticed and is continuing to get bigger and bigger but because people are comfortable in what they are they don't want to point out the elephant in the room.
This book is so full of good quotes, I may have to buy a new notebook(i keep notebooks of quotes I like) before I am done (I'm only about 50 pages in), but it addresses so many of the problems that I have worried about for a while now. My own church wants to spend $70,000 on renovations to our church sign and to put in a fountain so the roadside will be prettier. Do you know what you could do with $70,000 to help others? It doesn't have to go thousands of miles away to tsunami victims, there are plenty of needy right here in our part of the world.
I agree with this quote from David Seamands, counselor,
Many years ago I was driven to the conclusion that the two major causes of most emotional problems among evangelical christians are these; the failure to understand, receive, and live out God's unconditional grace and forgiveness; and the failure to give out that unconditional love, forgiveness and grace to other people. We read, we hear, we believe a good theology of grace. But that's not the way we live. The good news of the gospel of grace has not penetrated the level of our emotions.
The church needs to re-examine what it is doing and what is doing to the world for the good of Jesus. I know yall all don't believe in Jesus, or Jesus as Messiah, but the church is doing the best it can to make sure that nobody wants anything to do with christians for a long time to come.
This book refers to the infighting and fighting with others as a "culture war". The church is more likely to show ungrace through a spirit of moral superiority or a fierce attitude towards opponents, this is the new legalism.
I think the younger churches are tired of their parents religion and hating of others. I believe that the church will eventually come to a crossroads where there will be a reveloution to return to the teachings of the bible and not the legalism that has permeated the church of today. Everybody, christians and non-christians, are tired of the attitude that christians are better than everybody else. It's tearing the church apart literally. Cutting edge youth ministeries that want to really do something and help others are being broken up by old school pastors that don't want to help others unless they come to their church. Cutting edge pastors that want to step out and make a difference in the world are being silenced and kicked out of their churches because they are too worried about those that don't come to the church instead of the long term members.
It can't go on like this much longer or it will break apart.
On a humorous sidenote Mark Twain used to say he put a dog and cat in a cage together as an experiment, to see if they could get along. They did, so he put in a bird, pig, and goat. They, too, got along fine after a few adjustments. Then he put in a Baptist, Presbyterian, and Catholic; soon there was not a living thing left.
There is a story in there that really demonstrates how the church is so out of touch with what it is supposed to be. The author says this comes from a friend who works with the down-and-out in Chicago.
A prostitute came to me in wretched straits, homeless, sick, unable to buy food for her two year old daughter. Through sobs and tears, she told me she had been renting out her daugheter--two years old!-- to men interested in kinky sex. She made more renting out her daughter for an hour than she could earn on her own in a night. She had to do it, she said, to support her own drug habit. I could hardly bear hearing her sordid story. For one thing, it made me legally liable--I'm required to report cases of child abuse. I had no idea what to say to this woman.
At last I asked if she had ever thought of going to a church for help. I will never forget the look of pure, naive shock that crossed her face. "Church!" she cried. "Why would I ever go there? I was already feeling terrible about myself. They'd just make me feel worse."
This is how the church is seen as today. Instead of demonstrating the very love we are supposed to both have but also to demonstrate the church has become the condemnation of everybody including the brethren. It's as if the church goers have become comfortable just in the knowledge without the fruit to go with it. The very ones that claim to live under the dispensation of grace have turned it into a dispensation of the law and whoever appears Holy to others must be better so they look down their nose at others instead of looking for a place to share what they "know".
I don't think it is all a money thing or that it is necessarily motivated out of any particular thinking. I just think that the monster that crept into the church has not been noticed and is continuing to get bigger and bigger but because people are comfortable in what they are they don't want to point out the elephant in the room.
This book is so full of good quotes, I may have to buy a new notebook(i keep notebooks of quotes I like) before I am done (I'm only about 50 pages in), but it addresses so many of the problems that I have worried about for a while now. My own church wants to spend $70,000 on renovations to our church sign and to put in a fountain so the roadside will be prettier. Do you know what you could do with $70,000 to help others? It doesn't have to go thousands of miles away to tsunami victims, there are plenty of needy right here in our part of the world.
I agree with this quote from David Seamands, counselor,
Many years ago I was driven to the conclusion that the two major causes of most emotional problems among evangelical christians are these; the failure to understand, receive, and live out God's unconditional grace and forgiveness; and the failure to give out that unconditional love, forgiveness and grace to other people. We read, we hear, we believe a good theology of grace. But that's not the way we live. The good news of the gospel of grace has not penetrated the level of our emotions.
The church needs to re-examine what it is doing and what is doing to the world for the good of Jesus. I know yall all don't believe in Jesus, or Jesus as Messiah, but the church is doing the best it can to make sure that nobody wants anything to do with christians for a long time to come.
This book refers to the infighting and fighting with others as a "culture war". The church is more likely to show ungrace through a spirit of moral superiority or a fierce attitude towards opponents, this is the new legalism.
I think the younger churches are tired of their parents religion and hating of others. I believe that the church will eventually come to a crossroads where there will be a reveloution to return to the teachings of the bible and not the legalism that has permeated the church of today. Everybody, christians and non-christians, are tired of the attitude that christians are better than everybody else. It's tearing the church apart literally. Cutting edge youth ministeries that want to really do something and help others are being broken up by old school pastors that don't want to help others unless they come to their church. Cutting edge pastors that want to step out and make a difference in the world are being silenced and kicked out of their churches because they are too worried about those that don't come to the church instead of the long term members.
It can't go on like this much longer or it will break apart.
On a humorous sidenote Mark Twain used to say he put a dog and cat in a cage together as an experiment, to see if they could get along. They did, so he put in a bird, pig, and goat. They, too, got along fine after a few adjustments. Then he put in a Baptist, Presbyterian, and Catholic; soon there was not a living thing left.
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 09:32pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 09:32pmThat's the state of things, though. Read "Animal Farm" by George Orwell (or, hell, anything by Orwell). The powers that be grow fat and apathetic, and a new class rises on the backs of the downtrodden promising a release from the bonds of oppression. The new powers grow fat and apathetic, and the trend repeats. As Clarence Darrow said, "History repeats itself; that's one of the things that's wrong with history."
The Church (by that I mean all denominations of Christianity) has always had problems living by the tenets of Christ, who, whether a real person or not, is a great mentor. That same glutted apathy is the reason for Protestantism. I agree that some sort of revolution is coming, but I doubt it'll come soon. The proles are too comfortable with Big Brother's rule. And if it does come, it'll probably be at the heels of another sort of upheaval; political perhaps. Hopefully.
The problems with Christianity aren't in the faith itself. Faith is a wonderful thing. Religion, though, fucks things up.
You know, Rick, it only takes one person to start a revolution. *nudge*
The Church (by that I mean all denominations of Christianity) has always had problems living by the tenets of Christ, who, whether a real person or not, is a great mentor. That same glutted apathy is the reason for Protestantism. I agree that some sort of revolution is coming, but I doubt it'll come soon. The proles are too comfortable with Big Brother's rule. And if it does come, it'll probably be at the heels of another sort of upheaval; political perhaps. Hopefully.
The problems with Christianity aren't in the faith itself. Faith is a wonderful thing. Religion, though, fucks things up.
You know, Rick, it only takes one person to start a revolution. *nudge*
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 09:45pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 09:45pm*nudge received* Oh, I know, that's one of the reasons that I have been unhappy with the status quo for a while now. I am sick of seeing the the things that I do see in the church of today. I have seriously considered putting the research and time into writing a book on where the church is really failing and not on where the church thinks it is failing. Really the church thinks that people just hate Jesus and God not that people really hate the christians that walk around full of pride, judgement, and walking around acting like the way to earn God's approval is by tearing down others.
Yeah, faith is a great thing, religion is a pathetic shambles of man trying to interject his own bias into something usually so simple, in christianity it is to Love God and love others as yourself.
Yeah, faith is a great thing, religion is a pathetic shambles of man trying to interject his own bias into something usually so simple, in christianity it is to Love God and love others as yourself.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 11:23pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 11:23pmIs there any reason that you, and others who think like you do, cannot start your own church? Even if you had to meet in your homes, or at a park (sort of like the early Christians did). Eventually, when you had the means, you could move into larger quarters. In the interim, however, you would be worshiping in a way that felt right to you, and helping others in a positive way.
There is a preacher here locally who did just that. This last year, he dedicated his new church, which seats 5,000. The people I know who attend his services think he is the greatest, and that the church provides them the type of worship they want to follow.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step.
There is a preacher here locally who did just that. This last year, he dedicated his new church, which seats 5,000. The people I know who attend his services think he is the greatest, and that the church provides them the type of worship they want to follow.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 06:23pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 06:23pmNow Rick, you know how you hate it when we take bible verses out of context! Why are you doing that in this situation?
My best friend is married to a Muslim, and I work with people who follow that faith. They will tell you, just as you and other Christians tell us, that what extremists say does not represent their religion. I don't know if you've ever spent time with middle eastern people, but the ones I know are honorable and caring. And they will tell you that their religion tolerates different religions, even to the point of a Muslim marrying a person of another faith.
Those personal observations, along with the limited reading I've done on the Muslim religion, are what formed the basis of my post. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can enlighten us a bit further.
My best friend is married to a Muslim, and I work with people who follow that faith. They will tell you, just as you and other Christians tell us, that what extremists say does not represent their religion. I don't know if you've ever spent time with middle eastern people, but the ones I know are honorable and caring. And they will tell you that their religion tolerates different religions, even to the point of a Muslim marrying a person of another faith.
Those personal observations, along with the limited reading I've done on the Muslim religion, are what formed the basis of my post. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can enlighten us a bit further.
Posted by Valacosa :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:11pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:11pmRick,
First of all, I would like to thank you for continuing to post intelligent arguments. I gave Mrs. Smith both barrels, party because it was late at night, partly because I dislike responses that have a lot of words but say nothing except, "I'm better than you."
About your "store-sale" analogue, I've thought about that already. But the proselytization I'm talking about goes beyond "friends."
Picture this: I'm sitting in a large lounge on a university campus, reading a newspapar and minding my own business. This whom I've never met approaches me and asks, "I was wondering if you've ever heard of Jesus."
I love intelligent debate with my atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Pagan friends. On occaison, they'll ask me to come to "infinite circle", or tell me, "you should be Jewish." I don't view that in the same light. They're my friends already, and I know they're not out to merely assimilate me.
If companies practiced the type of proselytization I'm talking about, they would make you beg for the days of email spam.
[I try to cut through the Student Life Center on my way to class. The building is crowded.]
Man 1: Used TV's! Get tm nice and cheap! Come to Johnny's dis..
Woman 1: Hey, you! You don't have a personal PC, do you? What, an iPod? Heathen!
Man 2: Want some v!a_g2a?
And so forth...
As far as being able to prove that christians are right it is something that probably can not be done with a person such as yourself...
You're right, but you realize this. I know that digitized words, lauched anonymously from hundreds of kilometres away aren't going to change anyone's mind, except those of the naive or desperate. You know this too. But as Ryland showed, not all people know this.
Besides that, I'm a skeptic. And a Physics students. There are Christians, Jews, and Muslims I know personally who are Physics students, but knowing how the universe works without the intervention of deities certainly doesn't hurt.
...your heart is hardened to what the Bible has to say.
I'm hurt by this, though you did use it in a poetic device whose name eludes me right now. Naw, I do think there's good stuff in the Bible. I love the "Let he is without sin throw the first stone" parable, but sadly I don't hear a lot of zealots mention that one. Funny that.
...the answer excludes any other potential answer.
This sounds like the Uniqueness Theorem, which we use a lot in Physics.
Still, the question remains: why do these people believe a group, when the only "evidence" comes from that group, and is circular in nature?
I'm going to tell you something I don't tell most people, but I think you'll understand. Yes, I am a (weak) athiest. I really hope I'm wrong. Though that might surprise you, there it is. It would be wonderful for me if those theists were right, and there was a God, or Goddess, some hedgemony of Gods, something. And though there are people constantly telling me these beings do in fact exist, I am too much of a scientist to believe them.
First of all, I would like to thank you for continuing to post intelligent arguments. I gave Mrs. Smith both barrels, party because it was late at night, partly because I dislike responses that have a lot of words but say nothing except, "I'm better than you."
About your "store-sale" analogue, I've thought about that already. But the proselytization I'm talking about goes beyond "friends."
Picture this: I'm sitting in a large lounge on a university campus, reading a newspapar and minding my own business. This whom I've never met approaches me and asks, "I was wondering if you've ever heard of Jesus."
I love intelligent debate with my atheist, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and Pagan friends. On occaison, they'll ask me to come to "infinite circle", or tell me, "you should be Jewish." I don't view that in the same light. They're my friends already, and I know they're not out to merely assimilate me.
If companies practiced the type of proselytization I'm talking about, they would make you beg for the days of email spam.
[I try to cut through the Student Life Center on my way to class. The building is crowded.]
Man 1: Used TV's! Get tm nice and cheap! Come to Johnny's dis..
Woman 1: Hey, you! You don't have a personal PC, do you? What, an iPod? Heathen!
Man 2: Want some v!a_g2a?
And so forth...
As far as being able to prove that christians are right it is something that probably can not be done with a person such as yourself...
You're right, but you realize this. I know that digitized words, lauched anonymously from hundreds of kilometres away aren't going to change anyone's mind, except those of the naive or desperate. You know this too. But as Ryland showed, not all people know this.
Besides that, I'm a skeptic. And a Physics students. There are Christians, Jews, and Muslims I know personally who are Physics students, but knowing how the universe works without the intervention of deities certainly doesn't hurt.
...your heart is hardened to what the Bible has to say.
I'm hurt by this, though you did use it in a poetic device whose name eludes me right now. Naw, I do think there's good stuff in the Bible. I love the "Let he is without sin throw the first stone" parable, but sadly I don't hear a lot of zealots mention that one. Funny that.
...the answer excludes any other potential answer.
This sounds like the Uniqueness Theorem, which we use a lot in Physics.
Still, the question remains: why do these people believe a group, when the only "evidence" comes from that group, and is circular in nature?
I'm going to tell you something I don't tell most people, but I think you'll understand. Yes, I am a (weak) athiest. I really hope I'm wrong. Though that might surprise you, there it is. It would be wonderful for me if those theists were right, and there was a God, or Goddess, some hedgemony of Gods, something. And though there are people constantly telling me these beings do in fact exist, I am too much of a scientist to believe them.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:43pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:43pmVal, I would have to concede that the proselytization I am talking about would be more in the line with people I come in contact with, either friends or just people I meet. Have you read Ryland's friends essay on this. I think you would find it very interesting, I know I did and want to share it with other believers.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have pushed the "you just will not believe" like I did. It was late and I was tired and rambling a bit. The way I see it (I am not trying to sound superior here) I made my choice and you will make yours. I can't force you to change but I can try to live the best example I can and maybe you will get curious. You sound like the kind of person that is at least open to hear but maybe less likely to make that committment, but at least you will listen and not run away screaming with hands over your ears, well except maybe from the guys that attack you in the library or student center and then I can't blame you.
I think most people hope that there is a God and that we are not just floating around by chance. Even if I didn't believe I still think that I would want there to be somebody that is watching out for me out there somewhere. It's just hard to do when people see so much suffering and hate in the world.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't have pushed the "you just will not believe" like I did. It was late and I was tired and rambling a bit. The way I see it (I am not trying to sound superior here) I made my choice and you will make yours. I can't force you to change but I can try to live the best example I can and maybe you will get curious. You sound like the kind of person that is at least open to hear but maybe less likely to make that committment, but at least you will listen and not run away screaming with hands over your ears, well except maybe from the guys that attack you in the library or student center and then I can't blame you.
I think most people hope that there is a God and that we are not just floating around by chance. Even if I didn't believe I still think that I would want there to be somebody that is watching out for me out there somewhere. It's just hard to do when people see so much suffering and hate in the world.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:46am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:46amVal, here's an interesting (albeit long) article on Hell, and how it came into our current lexicon.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.html
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/TheBibleHell.html
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 12:57am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 12:57amWhy, thank you Damion -- it would be my pleasure to help set this soul straight on a few matters.
We'll start off with the easy ones (just in case Ms. Smith is one of those "challenged" types):
In regards to the "unfortunate death" question, it was clear he was using his faith in an effort to insult me (in essence letting me know that the options, in his mind, were for me to face heaven or hell) because I dared to be an atheist. Normally such an asinine (that would mean "stupid" or "not thought out," dear) question would hardly have raised my ire: ignoring the asinine is something I've become accustomed to.
However, even more galling is that, along with his "faith," he was using his position of authority to cast ridicule on me. In case you were unaware of this little fact, chaplains are officers in the military, and as such they are bound by certain protocols and behaviors. When he felt his faith, my atheism, or both were enough to warrant his being incredibly disrespectful to me, THAT is what offended me: He disrespected the uniform and the rank when he disrespected me and my beliefs (or lack thereof).
The same goes for the "rather loudly" comment, only this time it was a matter of trying to cast even wider disparagement (that means "to make fun of" or "belittle") by use of volume. No, I have no problem with people knowing I'm an atheist, but when it is used in a context similar to someone yelling "Nigger!" at a Klan rally, I have issues. (My apologies to everyone for use of the "n-word" -- I am merely trying to illustrate a point for someone who probably needs all the illustrations she can get.)
As the "uncertain term" comment goes, let me see if I can make this a little clearer for you... When you came to this site and read these remarks, there was no one there to force you to read them: you could have left any time you wished. Now, instead of merely visiting a site voluntarily as you did, I was to come over to where you lived, get in your face with a couple of my buddies, and yell at you that you were a stupid fuck for believing in something that has as much relevance to reality as the tooth fairy, would you not feel a bit upset? Frankly, I don't give a damn about their beliefs, or what they feel about mine, but I do value my privacy AND my personal space.
Finally, what makes you think I don't wish to understand Christian belief? Do you think I was born and raised atheist? Ooh, sorry, wrong answer: I was raised Catholic, but I arrived where I did after much research, consideration and introspection. I understand Christianity very well, thank you, enough to know that many Christians don't have the first idea of what it means to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (note to all: notice I said "many Christians," not "all" or even "most"). For many "Christians," religion is merely an excuse to maintain the prejudices they have harbored for far too long. I believe that you may fall under the "many" category, to be honest.
By the way, yes, there is an Absolute Truth: it is called "nature," which is bound by laws of physics and biology. Enough about that.
I care about believers as well, because it is the irrationality of the more fervent believers that concerns me. You say you know where I am going, and yet the only proof you have of that comes from a book that will surely end up going the way of The Ilead in a few hundred years, by which time most of the planet may be worshipping some giant space fungus. Such is the history of mythologies.
My life is quite fulfilling -- I do not lack for spirituality or friendship, I have a decent job with good pay, and my cats seem to like me for who I am. Perhaps you should look inside yourself and see why it is you require religion to feel fulfilled.
Otherwise, peace out...
We'll start off with the easy ones (just in case Ms. Smith is one of those "challenged" types):
In regards to the "unfortunate death" question, it was clear he was using his faith in an effort to insult me (in essence letting me know that the options, in his mind, were for me to face heaven or hell) because I dared to be an atheist. Normally such an asinine (that would mean "stupid" or "not thought out," dear) question would hardly have raised my ire: ignoring the asinine is something I've become accustomed to.
However, even more galling is that, along with his "faith," he was using his position of authority to cast ridicule on me. In case you were unaware of this little fact, chaplains are officers in the military, and as such they are bound by certain protocols and behaviors. When he felt his faith, my atheism, or both were enough to warrant his being incredibly disrespectful to me, THAT is what offended me: He disrespected the uniform and the rank when he disrespected me and my beliefs (or lack thereof).
The same goes for the "rather loudly" comment, only this time it was a matter of trying to cast even wider disparagement (that means "to make fun of" or "belittle") by use of volume. No, I have no problem with people knowing I'm an atheist, but when it is used in a context similar to someone yelling "Nigger!" at a Klan rally, I have issues. (My apologies to everyone for use of the "n-word" -- I am merely trying to illustrate a point for someone who probably needs all the illustrations she can get.)
As the "uncertain term" comment goes, let me see if I can make this a little clearer for you... When you came to this site and read these remarks, there was no one there to force you to read them: you could have left any time you wished. Now, instead of merely visiting a site voluntarily as you did, I was to come over to where you lived, get in your face with a couple of my buddies, and yell at you that you were a stupid fuck for believing in something that has as much relevance to reality as the tooth fairy, would you not feel a bit upset? Frankly, I don't give a damn about their beliefs, or what they feel about mine, but I do value my privacy AND my personal space.
Finally, what makes you think I don't wish to understand Christian belief? Do you think I was born and raised atheist? Ooh, sorry, wrong answer: I was raised Catholic, but I arrived where I did after much research, consideration and introspection. I understand Christianity very well, thank you, enough to know that many Christians don't have the first idea of what it means to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (note to all: notice I said "many Christians," not "all" or even "most"). For many "Christians," religion is merely an excuse to maintain the prejudices they have harbored for far too long. I believe that you may fall under the "many" category, to be honest.
By the way, yes, there is an Absolute Truth: it is called "nature," which is bound by laws of physics and biology. Enough about that.
I care about believers as well, because it is the irrationality of the more fervent believers that concerns me. You say you know where I am going, and yet the only proof you have of that comes from a book that will surely end up going the way of The Ilead in a few hundred years, by which time most of the planet may be worshipping some giant space fungus. Such is the history of mythologies.
My life is quite fulfilling -- I do not lack for spirituality or friendship, I have a decent job with good pay, and my cats seem to like me for who I am. Perhaps you should look inside yourself and see why it is you require religion to feel fulfilled.
Otherwise, peace out...
Posted by Jane Smith :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:25am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:25amBTW, my real name is Jane Smith. And I was born and reared in the deep south, so that klan comment hit home.
Thank you for your lucid, and less than asinine, response. I fear that my earlier haste to reply before setting supper on the table for my family led me to be to abrupt. Please accept my sincere apologies.
I am, however, continually amazed by the lack of interest in a true give and take dialogue about Christianity. It always boils down into "let's see just how offensive I can be to irritate the Christian."
yes, there is an Absolute Truth: it is called "nature
Have you heard of the theory of Intelligent Design?
I, too, have a fulfilling life with three cats who tolerate us long enough to gain access to the sofa and two dogs who worship the ground on which I walk.
Peace out 2u2.
Thank you for your lucid, and less than asinine, response. I fear that my earlier haste to reply before setting supper on the table for my family led me to be to abrupt. Please accept my sincere apologies.
I am, however, continually amazed by the lack of interest in a true give and take dialogue about Christianity. It always boils down into "let's see just how offensive I can be to irritate the Christian."
yes, there is an Absolute Truth: it is called "nature
Have you heard of the theory of Intelligent Design?
I, too, have a fulfilling life with three cats who tolerate us long enough to gain access to the sofa and two dogs who worship the ground on which I walk.
Peace out 2u2.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:03am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:03amAh, much better...
Yes, I am aware that there are offensive atheists out there (I prefer to call them anti-theists, as they seem hell-bent to outlaw religion altogether [pun intended]), but there are an even greater number of so-called "Christians" who feel no greater pleasure than when mocking or cursing our (atheists) existence. This does not excuse poor behavior on anyone's part, though, I should point out.
Yes, I have heard of Intelligent Design, and it is simply creationism wrapped in a thin veneer of scientific-sounding terms. It is flawed due to its simplistic reasoning: We don't know how this happened, or why, and therefore it must be the result of a higher power.
Intelligent Design adherents use such arguments as, "How did eyes come into existence? They are too complex and purpose-specific to have simply happened by accident." This, of course, implies that eyes are the only means of using the visual sensory function, which is untrue: there are many life forms on this planet that are born with no eyes, but have other means to distinguish what something "looks" like. Eyes are simply a happy biological happenstance, a mutation that became useful enough to continue on. (It would be interesting to wonder what other senses we could have ended up with, had our eyes not become responsible for more than 90% of our sensory inputs.)
The real damage of ID is that it would stifle research whenever an obstacle popped up, relying instead on, "Well, we don't know/can't know why this is, so let's just say that a superior (or even, shall we say, "supreme") being is responsible for this and just move on." Soon the arguments would begin: Who do you think the leading candidate for "superior being" is going to be? Hence, creationism.
Party on...
Yes, I am aware that there are offensive atheists out there (I prefer to call them anti-theists, as they seem hell-bent to outlaw religion altogether [pun intended]), but there are an even greater number of so-called "Christians" who feel no greater pleasure than when mocking or cursing our (atheists) existence. This does not excuse poor behavior on anyone's part, though, I should point out.
Yes, I have heard of Intelligent Design, and it is simply creationism wrapped in a thin veneer of scientific-sounding terms. It is flawed due to its simplistic reasoning: We don't know how this happened, or why, and therefore it must be the result of a higher power.
Intelligent Design adherents use such arguments as, "How did eyes come into existence? They are too complex and purpose-specific to have simply happened by accident." This, of course, implies that eyes are the only means of using the visual sensory function, which is untrue: there are many life forms on this planet that are born with no eyes, but have other means to distinguish what something "looks" like. Eyes are simply a happy biological happenstance, a mutation that became useful enough to continue on. (It would be interesting to wonder what other senses we could have ended up with, had our eyes not become responsible for more than 90% of our sensory inputs.)
The real damage of ID is that it would stifle research whenever an obstacle popped up, relying instead on, "Well, we don't know/can't know why this is, so let's just say that a superior (or even, shall we say, "supreme") being is responsible for this and just move on." Soon the arguments would begin: Who do you think the leading candidate for "superior being" is going to be? Hence, creationism.
Party on...
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:40am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:40amOh, oh!! I know who the Supreme Being is...he was in Time Bandits!
(One of my all time favorite movies - wanna stay up late and watch it again? I'll make the popcorn.)
(One of my all time favorite movies - wanna stay up late and watch it again? I'll make the popcorn.)
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:55am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:55amYou're on, babe! That is one of my favorite movies as well. (Although I'll have to pass on the popcorn - how about some Red Ropes instead?)
We can follow that up with Life of Brian and truly condemn ourselves! Woo-hoo!
We can follow that up with Life of Brian and truly condemn ourselves! Woo-hoo!
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 03:31am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 03:31amRed ropes it is hon!
My favorite part of Life of Brian..."the Greeks shall inherit the earth". That scene always makes me laugh (ok, the whole movie makes me laugh). I once had a friend perk me up on a very bad day by standing down the hall from my desk and whistling "always look on the bright side of life..." I was laughing in no time.
I also have a rare copy of The Jabberwocky, and of course, the standard in any Python loving household...The Holy Grail.
Fellow MP addicts are always welcome. :)
My favorite part of Life of Brian..."the Greeks shall inherit the earth". That scene always makes me laugh (ok, the whole movie makes me laugh). I once had a friend perk me up on a very bad day by standing down the hall from my desk and whistling "always look on the bright side of life..." I was laughing in no time.
I also have a rare copy of The Jabberwocky, and of course, the standard in any Python loving household...The Holy Grail.
Fellow MP addicts are always welcome. :)
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 03:54am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 03:54amBRIAN: Look. You've got it all wrong. You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we're all individuals!
BRIAN: You're all different!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we are all different!
DENNIS: I'm not.
ARTHUR: Shhhh.
---------------------------------
Without a doubt, the funniest sequence in the whole movie, simply because it is too close to the truth...
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we're all individuals!
BRIAN: You're all different!
FOLLOWERS: Yes, we are all different!
DENNIS: I'm not.
ARTHUR: Shhhh.
---------------------------------
Without a doubt, the funniest sequence in the whole movie, simply because it is too close to the truth...
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 06:09pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 06:09pm"A shoe!! A shoe!!".
Posted by RIck :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:26pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:26pmWow popcorn and pancakes your quite a catch redraven.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:42pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:42pm(I'll bet she's a babe, too...)
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 05:54pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 05:54pmWhy gentlemen, thank you for your kind words.
Sir Craig, I wish I could tell you that along with my brilliant mind, my exceptional sense of humor, my loving and loyal personality, and my fabulous cooking skills that I am a babe...but alas. I leave that to the botox/silicone filled lovelies who live in So Cal (wouldn't want to give them too much competition - HA!) :)
Sir Craig, I wish I could tell you that along with my brilliant mind, my exceptional sense of humor, my loving and loyal personality, and my fabulous cooking skills that I am a babe...but alas. I leave that to the botox/silicone filled lovelies who live in So Cal (wouldn't want to give them too much competition - HA!) :)
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 01:16pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 01:16pm"Babeness" is a state of mind, and you more than qualify.
(Side note: Silicone/botox/collagen injected "beauties" make me want to gag, which is why I detest SoCal so much. Well, that and the fact I hail from NorCal.)
(Side note: Silicone/botox/collagen injected "beauties" make me want to gag, which is why I detest SoCal so much. Well, that and the fact I hail from NorCal.)
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 01:53pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 01:53pmYeah! Well said Sir Craig "babeness" is a state of mind. Besides who would want to get all that stuff done? I gotta wonder what the batch of Barbies are going to look like when even their plastic starts to melt and droop.
Me and my wife watch discovery health and see the makeover surgery shows and are amazed at what people will spend to look a little better. We saw a couple the other night, from SoCal, that wanted to get married but instead of a honeymoon they each had surgery, she had boobs, lipo, nose, and a tuck done and he had nose and lipo, they spent over $35,000 together? There are so many better things I could do with $35k.
Me and my wife watch discovery health and see the makeover surgery shows and are amazed at what people will spend to look a little better. We saw a couple the other night, from SoCal, that wanted to get married but instead of a honeymoon they each had surgery, she had boobs, lipo, nose, and a tuck done and he had nose and lipo, they spent over $35,000 together? There are so many better things I could do with $35k.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 06:05pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 06:05pmWe watch those programs too Rick, and I'm always astonished at the amount of money that people have to waste upon themselves! Incredible! Honestly, a lot of times, I don't think they look all that much better.
I love the way faces of elders look - wrinkled and weathered. Unfortunately, our society does not put much value in the beauty that resides in those who are old.
I think that many middle age women, especially, feel pressured by this, in that because they no longer meet the beauty standard put forth by the media, they are disregarded. How unfortunate, because these mothers, who are becoming crones (i.e., the three stages of woman - the virgin, the mother, the crone), have so much to offer, in terms of their knowledge and experience.
All the above probably stems from the breakdown of the extended family unit, and our learned appreciation of our elders - but that's a topic for an entirely separate thread. :)
I love the way faces of elders look - wrinkled and weathered. Unfortunately, our society does not put much value in the beauty that resides in those who are old.
I think that many middle age women, especially, feel pressured by this, in that because they no longer meet the beauty standard put forth by the media, they are disregarded. How unfortunate, because these mothers, who are becoming crones (i.e., the three stages of woman - the virgin, the mother, the crone), have so much to offer, in terms of their knowledge and experience.
All the above probably stems from the breakdown of the extended family unit, and our learned appreciation of our elders - but that's a topic for an entirely separate thread. :)
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 06:11pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 06:11pm"I went from Phoenix, AZ all the way to Tacoma, Philadelphia, Atlanta, LA, Northern California where the girls are warm..."
I lived in Santa Barbara (a mile from the beach) for 10 years, and now in Nor Cal for the past 18. The folks up here are definitely less rushed and abrupt than those down south. I go back to visit occasionally, but my heart is always in the Sierra. I can't see myself moving too far away.
I lived in Santa Barbara (a mile from the beach) for 10 years, and now in Nor Cal for the past 18. The folks up here are definitely less rushed and abrupt than those down south. I go back to visit occasionally, but my heart is always in the Sierra. I can't see myself moving too far away.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:44pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:44pmI didn't even get to the part with the Red Ropes, and she reads, somewhere in California there is a lucky guy.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:48am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:48amIntelligent Design isn't a theory at all, it's a rhetorical device. The only "theory" ID contains is that the theory of evolution can't explain some things, and so therefore it's wrong; that idea simply betrays a lack of understanding of what a scientific theory is, and ignores the fact that evolution continues to happen even now. The fact of evolution exists, whether or not you understand the theory of evolution. Lack of understanding doesn't invalidate or disprove evolution, any more than lack of understanding makes pi equal to 3.
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 06:46pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 06:46pmGod bless you, Ryland. Good form.
Posted by Valacosa :: :: :: Jan 07, 2005 09:47pm
:: :: Jan 07, 2005 09:47pmWow, I appreciate the time you spent putting together that scary collection of links. I'd say the most disturbing one was the Native American site. "We can think of no better way to celebrate our culture than to adopt the religion of the people who slaughtered us." Sheesh! And that metal site...I swear I entered the "Metal section" not the "Christian Section", and I'll be damned, I still saw crosses and titles like "It's cool to be a Christian" everywhere!
It's scary how a site took an already-obvious similarity between Jesus and Kahless and tries to turn this into a reason to convert. I mean, these similarities exist everywhere, and are probably intentional:
Klingons: Kahless
Vulcans: Surak (Does this make the Romulans heathens?)
Ferengi: Gint
Narn: G'Quan
Minbari: Valen
Ur-Quan: Kzer-Za
Alright, I think that's enough.
It's scary how a site took an already-obvious similarity between Jesus and Kahless and tries to turn this into a reason to convert. I mean, these similarities exist everywhere, and are probably intentional:
Klingons: Kahless
Vulcans: Surak (Does this make the Romulans heathens?)
Ferengi: Gint
Narn: G'Quan
Minbari: Valen
Ur-Quan: Kzer-Za
Alright, I think that's enough.
Posted by Fernando Dunn II :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:28am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:28amRyland, if I were blogging about two years ago, I would have beat you to the punch on this post. You have made a lot of valid points, several of which I still hold on to.
To be brief, I was born atheist (just like everyone else) and grew to be anti-Christian in my teens. I couldn't stand them for what you've listed and much more. A couple years ago, I came to realize that believing in Christ is a personal experience and it's nothing that can be forced on anyone. I've been on both ends of the spectrum, so I am blessed to understand how different people think.
As you stated, we are entitled to our own beliefs. Two problems occur though with human interaction. (1) People don't truly understand culture. We don't think about the whys and hows of things. All we know is what we know. And to us, we all that can ever be right. (2) People try to define others and end up living up to that definition themselves. For example, it is only natural for a human to try to influence others to believe what is true to them. To see, just read 90% of these comments.
You'll observe people speaking with authority and using supporting details or evidence as to what they think. The purpose of evidence is for proof. The purpose of proof is persuasion. The purpose of persuasion is conversion. We all do it and it has nothing to do with Christianity, religion, or whatever we're trying to influence.
To be brief, I was born atheist (just like everyone else) and grew to be anti-Christian in my teens. I couldn't stand them for what you've listed and much more. A couple years ago, I came to realize that believing in Christ is a personal experience and it's nothing that can be forced on anyone. I've been on both ends of the spectrum, so I am blessed to understand how different people think.
As you stated, we are entitled to our own beliefs. Two problems occur though with human interaction. (1) People don't truly understand culture. We don't think about the whys and hows of things. All we know is what we know. And to us, we all that can ever be right. (2) People try to define others and end up living up to that definition themselves. For example, it is only natural for a human to try to influence others to believe what is true to them. To see, just read 90% of these comments.
You'll observe people speaking with authority and using supporting details or evidence as to what they think. The purpose of evidence is for proof. The purpose of proof is persuasion. The purpose of persuasion is conversion. We all do it and it has nothing to do with Christianity, religion, or whatever we're trying to influence.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:34am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:34amI'll agree with you as far as it goes - one could argue that I'm trying to proselytize people to accept my views. The difference, to my mind at least, is that you can accept my views (that I and many others in this country are not Christian and don't want to be) and still be a Christian yourself, without curtailing your own existing beliefs to any great extent. Hell, I'm not even asking you to stop proselytizing for Christianity, as long as you can manage to do it without being annoying and/or using my tax dollars.
Posted by Fernando Dunn II :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 09:20am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 09:20amI was just trying to bring to light that we do the same thing in life (in its core) but in different ways and for different reasons.
I think everyone's beliefs have them treating life like the arm rest in the car. Of course we want other people to be able to use it and be comfortable. But in the end, we end up fighting for position. We all want to be comfortable.
Around christmas, one of my coworkers was talking to someone and he yells out "I'm atheist. You've got to be dumb as *bleep* to believe in any of that stupid *bleep*." I use him as an example of what not to do, no matter what my beliefs are.
I think everyone's beliefs have them treating life like the arm rest in the car. Of course we want other people to be able to use it and be comfortable. But in the end, we end up fighting for position. We all want to be comfortable.
Around christmas, one of my coworkers was talking to someone and he yells out "I'm atheist. You've got to be dumb as *bleep* to believe in any of that stupid *bleep*." I use him as an example of what not to do, no matter what my beliefs are.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:13pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:13pmThat's an interesting analogy, because it assumes that life is a zero-sum game -- the number of "cushions" is finite, and only a few of us will get to be comforted.
The closest thing I have to a religion, in that I believe in it without being able to prove it, is that the universe is effectively infinite, and that in the long run, humans (both individually and as a species) have an effectively infinite potential to be or do anything we want. The only limiting factor is our own selves, our own imagination, our own capacity for accepting that infinity and moving in it. We've done so many wonderful things in the past few hundred years, not only through technology, but through an increased capacity for sharing and growth. We could go to the moon tomorrow, we could roam the planets and the stars tomorrow, we could end disease and hunger and poverty tomorrow... but we don't. Why don't we?
Nothing in nature stops us; I don't think anything in the universe can stop us, in the long run. The only reason we don't do all those wonderful things tomorrow is fear; that fear that the universe is finite, that there are only a limited number of cushions, so to speak, and if we start sharing them around, we might run out. Is there anyone that seriously believes there isn't enough food in the world to feed everybody? Could we not build a thousand ships to take us out into the universe and find other worlds?
If you ask most people, they would probably tell you that the answer is, we don't have the money, we don't have the time, or the energy. We can't do it, because... we can't do it. A circular definition. I think that's just a lack of imagination.
I think that's one thing that irks me the most about Christianity; you claim God's love is infinite, but only a select few can have it, because Jesus is coming back any time now and that'll be it. I think that's a lack of imagination. If there is a God, maybe Jesus is waiting to come back until we get our shit together and start loving and sharing with everybody, even the atheists. Maybe, when everybody gets a cushion, that's when we're all saved.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
The closest thing I have to a religion, in that I believe in it without being able to prove it, is that the universe is effectively infinite, and that in the long run, humans (both individually and as a species) have an effectively infinite potential to be or do anything we want. The only limiting factor is our own selves, our own imagination, our own capacity for accepting that infinity and moving in it. We've done so many wonderful things in the past few hundred years, not only through technology, but through an increased capacity for sharing and growth. We could go to the moon tomorrow, we could roam the planets and the stars tomorrow, we could end disease and hunger and poverty tomorrow... but we don't. Why don't we?
Nothing in nature stops us; I don't think anything in the universe can stop us, in the long run. The only reason we don't do all those wonderful things tomorrow is fear; that fear that the universe is finite, that there are only a limited number of cushions, so to speak, and if we start sharing them around, we might run out. Is there anyone that seriously believes there isn't enough food in the world to feed everybody? Could we not build a thousand ships to take us out into the universe and find other worlds?
If you ask most people, they would probably tell you that the answer is, we don't have the money, we don't have the time, or the energy. We can't do it, because... we can't do it. A circular definition. I think that's just a lack of imagination.
I think that's one thing that irks me the most about Christianity; you claim God's love is infinite, but only a select few can have it, because Jesus is coming back any time now and that'll be it. I think that's a lack of imagination. If there is a God, maybe Jesus is waiting to come back until we get our shit together and start loving and sharing with everybody, even the atheists. Maybe, when everybody gets a cushion, that's when we're all saved.
But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Posted by Fernando Dunn II :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 09:40pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 09:40pmI definitely think the universe is infinite. And we very well could be cruising the galaxy some day. I hope the only purpose isn't just to satisfy the human curiosity, because I'm quite tired of multi-billion dollar equipment crashing into planets. I think the human race has the potential to be anything. I just am reminded that we are also subject to the world around us when it comes to our accomplishments.
I think there is plenty of food and money to feed the needy. Like you said, people say we don't have the money (aka hands that let go of it), time (aka patience), and energy (aka desire/heart to do so). Many people who are able to aid are too attached to their success to even think of lowering their standards of living for someone hanging on the edge of death. We live in the age of "I got mine, now you better get yours." That is why there will always be hungry people.
Like I said before, I completely understand how you feel about Christianity. That makes it all the harder to explain what I've currently come to know. To respond to your statement from a Christian standpoint though, I would have to actually use something that you previously said: "humans (both individually and as a species) have an effectively infinite potential to be or do anything we want." I believe God's love is infinite (meaning everlasting or unable to be exhausted), but it is definitely not shot around haphazardly or at random like an uncontrollable water hose.
I think there is plenty of food and money to feed the needy. Like you said, people say we don't have the money (aka hands that let go of it), time (aka patience), and energy (aka desire/heart to do so). Many people who are able to aid are too attached to their success to even think of lowering their standards of living for someone hanging on the edge of death. We live in the age of "I got mine, now you better get yours." That is why there will always be hungry people.
Like I said before, I completely understand how you feel about Christianity. That makes it all the harder to explain what I've currently come to know. To respond to your statement from a Christian standpoint though, I would have to actually use something that you previously said: "humans (both individually and as a species) have an effectively infinite potential to be or do anything we want." I believe God's love is infinite (meaning everlasting or unable to be exhausted), but it is definitely not shot around haphazardly or at random like an uncontrollable water hose.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 03:14am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 03:14amAnd I also agree with you when you say, "believing in Christ is a personal experience and it's nothing that can be forced on anyone." One of my best friends (who is also studying to be a minister) shared that insight with me a while back, in an essay called The Death of Evangelism.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 03:50am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 03:50amThanks for sharing the essay Ryland. I really like the points your friend makes at the end. In essence, they could apply to anyone, no matter what their spiritual path.
My copy of Mere Christianity sits on the shelf right next to the set of Narnian Chronicles, and the Perelandra trilogy. C.S. Lewis was an incredible man - one of those Christians who truly lived his faith.
Your friend sounds like he's headed in that direction as well.
My copy of Mere Christianity sits on the shelf right next to the set of Narnian Chronicles, and the Perelandra trilogy. C.S. Lewis was an incredible man - one of those Christians who truly lived his faith.
Your friend sounds like he's headed in that direction as well.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:25pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:25pmRyland your friend has put into words what I have believed but been unable to verbalize for years. I am personally tired of the tactics that have been used by the church for years. I am tired of the spiritual bullies that have led the churches for so long and I have wanted to see the example of what we are supposed to be instead of pie in the sky teachings and overly human/secular behavior.
I had never heard of Mere Christianity but my ebay auction ends in a couple of hours and I should have the book by the end of the week.
Would your friend mind if I posted it to another group that I visit that is mostly christians?
I had never heard of Mere Christianity but my ebay auction ends in a couple of hours and I should have the book by the end of the week.
Would your friend mind if I posted it to another group that I visit that is mostly christians?
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 05:01pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 05:01pmI'm sure he wouldn't mind, but it would probably be best if you ask him.
Posted by Matt :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 05:06pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 05:06pmIt's fine with me. For some reason that particular essay has been especially compelling to people. Probably because I talk about myself in the shower. Just a guess.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 05:20pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 05:20pmThere's nothing like full frontal nudity to put over a theological point.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 05:44pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 05:44pmThank you, I just want some other folks I chat with occasionally to see this for themselves
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 06:04pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 06:04pmRick, if you haven't read the Narnian Chronicles (they start with The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe), you should - for both yourself and your kids. They are essentially childrens' stories (Lewis wrote them for his nieces and nephews during WWII), but they are enjoyable for adults as well (I've probably read them all 10 times).
As an adult, you will see the Christian themes woven into each book (there are 7); your children will see a magical story, but one where love and honor and doing the right thing are the lessons. As they get older, they will understand the parallels between the adventures of Peter, Lucy, Edward and Susan and the books of the new testament.
I highly recommend them, if you don't already own the series. Read them to your children - they'll love it.
As an adult, you will see the Christian themes woven into each book (there are 7); your children will see a magical story, but one where love and honor and doing the right thing are the lessons. As they get older, they will understand the parallels between the adventures of Peter, Lucy, Edward and Susan and the books of the new testament.
I highly recommend them, if you don't already own the series. Read them to your children - they'll love it.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 06:10pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 06:10pmWhat ages do you think are appropriate for these books? I have twin 8 year old boys and a 14 month old. I figure the youngest will definately be below the age but I didn't know if the older boys would be too old.
Plus I always love a good read.
Plus I always love a good read.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 06:42pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 06:42pm8 is a good age. They might be able to read the books themselves, but it would also give you or your wife an opportunity to read with them (I read to my children from the point where their eyes could track what was on the page in front of them - they're both high IQ/high achiever kids, and I believe that's big part of it. Reading is crucial to development, and reading to your children creates a special time for you and them, strengthening the bond between you.)
I will alert you though - Lewis used mythological creatures in his stories (dryads, satyrs, fauns, centaurs, etc.), and does talk about magic. Not knowing how you feel about this type of storytelling (some Christians will not allow their children to hear or see these types of things, as they feel the are evil - i.e., the flap over the Harry Potter stories), you may want to consider the content by reading them yourself, first. I'm not sure how anyone could consider the Chronicles evil, especially since CS Lewis was extremely devout, but I'm sure some do.
Regardless, I think your kiddos would enjoy the books, and you will too. :) Happy reading!
I will alert you though - Lewis used mythological creatures in his stories (dryads, satyrs, fauns, centaurs, etc.), and does talk about magic. Not knowing how you feel about this type of storytelling (some Christians will not allow their children to hear or see these types of things, as they feel the are evil - i.e., the flap over the Harry Potter stories), you may want to consider the content by reading them yourself, first. I'm not sure how anyone could consider the Chronicles evil, especially since CS Lewis was extremely devout, but I'm sure some do.
Regardless, I think your kiddos would enjoy the books, and you will too. :) Happy reading!
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 11:50pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 11:50pmI think Ijust got a pretty good deal on the Naria Chronicles. I got all 7 books in hardback with storage box thingy that they come in for $25.00 and free shipping with the Buy it now on Ebay.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 01:45am
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 01:45amI'd say you got a good deal Rick.
If find you enjoy the books, you might also want to look into getting the video versions that BBC did. They are pretty much word for word what is in the books. BBC filmed The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe, Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and the Silver Chair. I think they originally wanted to do the entire series, but didn't finish for some reason (probably lack of funds). The movies are low tech animation (they were made probably in the early '80's), but for those who love the stories, it doesn't matter. They're still charming, and bring a smile. The kids and I recently bought the set, sat down, and watched them all. Even though they are 17 and 19, they still enjoyed them.
Please let me know, once you've had a chance to read Mere Christianity and the Chronicles, what you think of them. Feel free to email, if you don't want to start a thread here.
If find you enjoy the books, you might also want to look into getting the video versions that BBC did. They are pretty much word for word what is in the books. BBC filmed The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe, Prince Caspian, The Voyage of the Dawn Treader, and the Silver Chair. I think they originally wanted to do the entire series, but didn't finish for some reason (probably lack of funds). The movies are low tech animation (they were made probably in the early '80's), but for those who love the stories, it doesn't matter. They're still charming, and bring a smile. The kids and I recently bought the set, sat down, and watched them all. Even though they are 17 and 19, they still enjoyed them.
Please let me know, once you've had a chance to read Mere Christianity and the Chronicles, what you think of them. Feel free to email, if you don't want to start a thread here.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 03:19am
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 03:19amFYI, The Chronicles of Narnia series is being remade. The first one, The Lion, The Witch, And The Wardrobe, is in post production. Looks like it might be pretty good.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 03:48am
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 03:48amWonderful!! Hopefully it will retain the magic of the books. Filmed in New Zealand - the scenery should be incredible.
The set of the Chronicles I have here at home was brought to me from England, as a gift from a gentleman who worked with my children's father, (30 years ago, now). He was from Burma - a very interesting individual, who had retained his very proper English accent and manner). He learned that I wanted a British set, rather than the ones published here in the States (for the illustrations - the British set is better). While visiting with family in England, he purchased the books for me. How surprised I was! I treasure them to this day, even though they have become a bit dog-earred over time.
The set of the Chronicles I have here at home was brought to me from England, as a gift from a gentleman who worked with my children's father, (30 years ago, now). He was from Burma - a very interesting individual, who had retained his very proper English accent and manner). He learned that I wanted a British set, rather than the ones published here in the States (for the illustrations - the British set is better). While visiting with family in England, he purchased the books for me. How surprised I was! I treasure them to this day, even though they have become a bit dog-earred over time.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:40am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:40amI suppose now is a good time to introduce (or re-introduce if you have read this blog long enough) what I like to call "Sir Craig's Codicil Regarding Religion in Relationship to Occam's Razor":
1. There are literally hundreds of different religions and faiths, each one with dozens or even hundreds of variations;
2. Each religious belief is exactly that: a belief, or "faith", because none has any actual proof other than what has been written or passed by word-of-mouth; in fact, any actual proof is considered antithetical to faith;
3. Each religion, belief, or faith claims to be the correct or true one, according to its adherents or particular dogma, and that all others are false or misleading;
4. By necessity, not all religions, beliefs, or faiths can be correct or true (see point #3);
5. In the face of total lack of proof, each religion, belief, or faith has an equal amount of validity (see point #2);
6. Therefore, since not all religions, beliefs, or faiths can be the correct or true answer (point #4), yet all are equally valid (point #5), it is safe to state that they are all wrong;
7. Ergo, the entire notion of religion itself is wrong.
Please feel free to flame this observation, if possible.
(By the way, William of Occam would have probably enjoyed this codicil.)
1. There are literally hundreds of different religions and faiths, each one with dozens or even hundreds of variations;
2. Each religious belief is exactly that: a belief, or "faith", because none has any actual proof other than what has been written or passed by word-of-mouth; in fact, any actual proof is considered antithetical to faith;
3. Each religion, belief, or faith claims to be the correct or true one, according to its adherents or particular dogma, and that all others are false or misleading;
4. By necessity, not all religions, beliefs, or faiths can be correct or true (see point #3);
5. In the face of total lack of proof, each religion, belief, or faith has an equal amount of validity (see point #2);
6. Therefore, since not all religions, beliefs, or faiths can be the correct or true answer (point #4), yet all are equally valid (point #5), it is safe to state that they are all wrong;
7. Ergo, the entire notion of religion itself is wrong.
Please feel free to flame this observation, if possible.
(By the way, William of Occam would have probably enjoyed this codicil.)
Posted by Fernando Dunn II :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 09:06am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 09:06amIt is funny to read that "the entire notion of religion itself is wrong," when even atheism is a religion. According to yourself, even you are wrong, yet you may never acknowledge it.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 10:41am
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 10:41amHow is atheism a religion? Atheism is, by definition, an utter lack of theistic notions: We do not believe, period. This cancels out any legitimacy that might be bestowed upon theism.
What you may be doing is thinking of anti-theists, which actively combats theism, which in turn legitimizes theism.
My observation still stands, unbroken (hands in air, jumping around)...
What you may be doing is thinking of anti-theists, which actively combats theism, which in turn legitimizes theism.
My observation still stands, unbroken (hands in air, jumping around)...
Posted by Fernando Dunn II :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 08:49pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 08:49pmAlong with references to a supernatural being, religion is also defined as "a cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." To me, Atheism has the same characteristics of any religion. That is why I categorize it as such. Of course, I'm wrong though.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 09:08pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 09:08pmYou're correct, but you're splitting hairs. I think we all know what we're referring to when we speak of religion in this context.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 08:59pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 08:59pmChild: Mommy, what is that man doing over there with his hands in the air, jumping around?
Mom: Why, I don't know dear. Maybe he's clogging.
Mom: Why, I don't know dear. Maybe he's clogging.
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 12:14pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 12:14pmFor lack of a better link (I know I had an essay similar to this one bookmarked once upon a time... le sigh), here.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:44pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:44pmSort of the long version of what I said -- thanks for the back-up...
Peace
Peace
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:53pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 01:53pmSorry to pipe in. Stuff like that just annoys me.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:09pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 02:09pmHeck, I appreciate knowing that my thinking is in line with others (let's me know I'm not the only one who's nutz)...
Posted by Matt :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 05:21pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 05:21pmThis is a good try, but your reasoning is fatally flawed. All religions may indeed be false, but you haven't proven that here. First of all, 3. is demonstrably false. All religions do not argue that other religions are false or misleading (see Ba'hai, Islam). But even if 3 were true, your real problem is 5. The validity of a belief refers to its actual truth (unless you're using it in some way I don't recognize), which you state in 2 cannot be proven. Therefore, by your own logic, 5 is a fallacy. The inability to demonstrate proof is not the same as nonexistence; the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Since 5 is false, 6 is also false, and 7 is false as well. QED.
It has long been my contention that the existence of God (and, hence the validity of religion) cannot be addressed by logic, any more than the existence of France can. As Kant said of Anselm's ontological proof, existence is not a predicate; i.e., there is no characteristic of a thing that is its "existence". It either exists phenomenologically or it does not.
It has long been my contention that the existence of God (and, hence the validity of religion) cannot be addressed by logic, any more than the existence of France can. As Kant said of Anselm's ontological proof, existence is not a predicate; i.e., there is no characteristic of a thing that is its "existence". It either exists phenomenologically or it does not.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 05:48pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 05:48pmI was thinking of addressing Sir Craig's argument as well, but I hadn't yet figured out how to verbalize what I was thinking. It's the classic conundrum of atheists as well as theists -- you can argue about it all you want, but objective proof doesn't exist either way. Occam's Razor is the only logically defensible position for atheists, in my opinion, but even it can be carried too far, as Matt has pointed out. That's basically why I retreated from hardcore atheism to agnosticism.
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 07:13pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 07:13pmIn George H. Smith's book "Atheism: The Case Against God," the first chapter is a look at "The Scope of Atheism," a section of which is dedicated to agnosticism and proving that it's actually atheism.
First, he delves into the true nature of agnosticism...
"Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being.
"The term 'agnostic' does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic."
And a bit later explains why he believe agnostics are actually atheists...
"... [A]gnosticism emerges as a third alternative only if atheism is narrowly defined as the denial of theism. We have seen, however [earlier in the book], that atheism, in its widest sense, refers basically to the absence of belief in god and need not entail the denial of god. Any person who does not believe in god, for whatever reason, is without theistic belief and therefore qualifies as an atheist.
"While the agnostic of the [Thomas] Huxley [coiner of the term 'agnostic'] variety may refuse to state whether theism is true or false -- thus 'suspending' his judgment -- he does not believe in the existence of god. (If he did believe, he would be a theist.) Since the agnostic does not accept the existence of a god as true, he is without theistic belief; he is atheistic -- and Huxley's agnosticism emerges as a form of atheism."
Any thoughts?
First, he delves into the true nature of agnosticism...
"Properly considered, agnosticism is not a third alternative to theism and atheism because it is concerned with a different aspect of religious belief. Theism and atheism refer to the presence or absence of belief in god; agnosticism refers to the impossibility of knowledge with regard to a god or supernatural being.
"The term 'agnostic' does not, in itself, indicate whether or not one believes in a god. Agnosticism can be either theistic or atheistic."
And a bit later explains why he believe agnostics are actually atheists...
"... [A]gnosticism emerges as a third alternative only if atheism is narrowly defined as the denial of theism. We have seen, however [earlier in the book], that atheism, in its widest sense, refers basically to the absence of belief in god and need not entail the denial of god. Any person who does not believe in god, for whatever reason, is without theistic belief and therefore qualifies as an atheist.
"While the agnostic of the [Thomas] Huxley [coiner of the term 'agnostic'] variety may refuse to state whether theism is true or false -- thus 'suspending' his judgment -- he does not believe in the existence of god. (If he did believe, he would be a theist.) Since the agnostic does not accept the existence of a god as true, he is without theistic belief; he is atheistic -- and Huxley's agnosticism emerges as a form of atheism."
Any thoughts?
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 07:34pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 07:34pmAs I said in my post, some people use the term "weak atheist" instead of agnostic; if it makes you feel better to use the term "atheist", you're welcome to it. I prefer the term "agnostic" because I feel like it distinguishes me from the hardcore atheists, who tend to be just as dogmatic and annoying as hardcore theists, in my book.
As far as Smith's argument that not explicitly believing in a deity equals atheism, you could make the same argument in reverse, that is, not explicitly believing there isn't a deity makes you a theist. Either way, it's cakes yesterday and cakes tomorrow, but never cakes today.
My whole position is that in the absence of objective proof, I don't know if there is or isn't a deity and I don't care. Hang whatever tag you like best on that.
As far as Smith's argument that not explicitly believing in a deity equals atheism, you could make the same argument in reverse, that is, not explicitly believing there isn't a deity makes you a theist. Either way, it's cakes yesterday and cakes tomorrow, but never cakes today.
My whole position is that in the absence of objective proof, I don't know if there is or isn't a deity and I don't care. Hang whatever tag you like best on that.
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 09:56pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 09:56pm*nod*
Posted by ag :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 11:47am
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 11:47amHi again. I'm back from my short break and noticed that you are again talking about religion.
Ryland, I think that you are really an Apatheist (as am I).
Ryland, I think that you are really an Apatheist (as am I).
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 11:50am
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 11:50amWhen do we ever talk about religion?
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 11:57am
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 11:57amDiscuss religion?! No way ag, not us!
Welcome back. :)
Welcome back. :)
Posted by David S :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 02:47am
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 02:47amDamion, you (and your source) are sounding like those people who think there are only Democrats and Republicans. The world is not all black and white; sometimes there is a gray area.
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 03:46am
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 03:46amIt does seem to be a pretty black and white area, though. I mean, either you believe there's a god or you don't. You may have doubts either way, but that doesn't change the belief. Seems to me, anyhow. Of course, I'm young. I may change my mind some day and switch to agnosticism. Or, hell, I could find Jesus. Never know.
Posted by David S :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 04:47am
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 04:47amSo you're saying that if you're not supporting an issue, you must be against it? I guess they need to take the undecided option off all of those political surveys.
I do not believe in any religion, however I do not exclude the possibility that there was a creator. Look at it as you wish, but there's a gray area from my point of view.
I do not believe in any religion, however I do not exclude the possibility that there was a creator. Look at it as you wish, but there's a gray area from my point of view.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 11:48am
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 11:48amThis is a link that shows some famous athiest that says he is no longer an athiest, more or less based on scientific evidence, but says "he's best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people's lives"
Throws himself into a gray area.
Throws himself into a gray area.
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 12:07pm
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 12:07pmSo, he's a theist. And, David, if you say there's a god, or some gods, you're a theist. If you say you don't believe there is a god or some gods, whether or not you're open to the possibility of being proven wrong, you're an atheist. At least that's how I see it.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 12:34pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 12:34pmAh, a challenge...
Actually, #3 is not demonstrably false: Any religion that regards other faiths or beliefs as "also possible" invites apostasy, which does nothing to strengthen one's position (sort of like suicide by public opinion). Your position that Islam does not regard other faiths as "false or misleading" is incorrect (see the moderate view, the not-so-moderate view, and Rick's quotes).
As for Bah'i, I would submit that this hardly qualifies as its own faith -- in fact, Baha'i feels that all religious teachings and beliefs are actually correct, that each one represents a stage in religious evolutionary development (a sort of MegaMart of religious teachings). In short, there is little originality in the Bah'i faith: it merely plagiarizes the other faiths and throws in a few quotes of its own. Bahy'i fails when all the other ones fail as well.
As for validity (point #5), that is a matter of perspective: validity as I was using it is not whether or not something is true or false, but rather the degree of its accuracy (my points are still in a rough draft state -- I may need to clean up and clarify a few of them). In the absence of any concrete proof that can be used to elevate any one belief or faith over another (point #2), they must all be assumed to be equally valid (i.e., equally true and/or false). Point #5 then continues to stand, and as such so do #6 and #7.
I'm sorry, but proof here is required, yet one of the fundamental teachings of religion is that it is impossible to know the will and nature of God, which is just another way of saying, "We have no proof because there isn't any." Though I understand that a lack of proof doesn't, in fact, deny existence, there must still be evidence that some kind of proof does exist. We don't know the nature of gravity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist because there is evidence that can still be examined. There is no such animal within religion. True, absence of evidence does not normally equal evidence of absence, but in this case there is strong argument that it means just that.
I will, however, agree with you that religion cannot be argued on terms of logic, because frankly I think it fails the logic test. I would argue that it easier to prove the existence of France than the existence of God, but only in terms of concrete observation and analysis. I would see your Kant and raise you a Descartes, whose certitude of existence was based on "dubito ergo cogito: cogito ergo sum." ("I doubt, therefore I think: I think, therefore I am.") You are correct that existence can only be arrived at phenomenologically (for everyone else out there: this means determining the existence of something through sensory perception, as opposed to scientific means), but even God, for the most part, fails this, because one person's spiritual experience is another's psychosis.
Wow. This is way too deep for a Sunday. And "Hi, Matt!" Long time, no see...
Actually, #3 is not demonstrably false: Any religion that regards other faiths or beliefs as "also possible" invites apostasy, which does nothing to strengthen one's position (sort of like suicide by public opinion). Your position that Islam does not regard other faiths as "false or misleading" is incorrect (see the moderate view, the not-so-moderate view, and Rick's quotes).
As for Bah'i, I would submit that this hardly qualifies as its own faith -- in fact, Baha'i feels that all religious teachings and beliefs are actually correct, that each one represents a stage in religious evolutionary development (a sort of MegaMart of religious teachings). In short, there is little originality in the Bah'i faith: it merely plagiarizes the other faiths and throws in a few quotes of its own. Bahy'i fails when all the other ones fail as well.
As for validity (point #5), that is a matter of perspective: validity as I was using it is not whether or not something is true or false, but rather the degree of its accuracy (my points are still in a rough draft state -- I may need to clean up and clarify a few of them). In the absence of any concrete proof that can be used to elevate any one belief or faith over another (point #2), they must all be assumed to be equally valid (i.e., equally true and/or false). Point #5 then continues to stand, and as such so do #6 and #7.
I'm sorry, but proof here is required, yet one of the fundamental teachings of religion is that it is impossible to know the will and nature of God, which is just another way of saying, "We have no proof because there isn't any." Though I understand that a lack of proof doesn't, in fact, deny existence, there must still be evidence that some kind of proof does exist. We don't know the nature of gravity, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist because there is evidence that can still be examined. There is no such animal within religion. True, absence of evidence does not normally equal evidence of absence, but in this case there is strong argument that it means just that.
I will, however, agree with you that religion cannot be argued on terms of logic, because frankly I think it fails the logic test. I would argue that it easier to prove the existence of France than the existence of God, but only in terms of concrete observation and analysis. I would see your Kant and raise you a Descartes, whose certitude of existence was based on "dubito ergo cogito: cogito ergo sum." ("I doubt, therefore I think: I think, therefore I am.") You are correct that existence can only be arrived at phenomenologically (for everyone else out there: this means determining the existence of something through sensory perception, as opposed to scientific means), but even God, for the most part, fails this, because one person's spiritual experience is another's psychosis.
Wow. This is way too deep for a Sunday. And "Hi, Matt!" Long time, no see...
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 01:09pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 01:09pmEven gravity and physics fail to work all the time.
Posted by Sir Craig :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 01:17pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 01:17pmDammit, my irrefutable logic done in by a hoax...curse you, Rick!
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 01:55pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 01:55pmSorry, I saw the brochure my sister brought back from a recent trip out to California. Looked like a real interesting place to visit though.
Posted by Valacosa :: :: :: Jan 09, 2005 07:15pm
:: :: Jan 09, 2005 07:15pmJames Randi has some interesting things to say about places such as "The Mystery Spot".
That aside, the actual laws of physics cannot be broken, at any time. This is true by definition. The problem is we don't know the laws of physics - the best we can do is build models that seem to approximate those laws based on our observations.
When we see something that defies explanation, it's not the laws of physics that are broken, it's the model. New models are built to explain the phenomenon. Newton didn't know about special relativity - does that mean it didn't exist in his time?
Sadly, the link you posted doesn't even "defy explaination"; it's just an optical illusion.
That aside, the actual laws of physics cannot be broken, at any time. This is true by definition. The problem is we don't know the laws of physics - the best we can do is build models that seem to approximate those laws based on our observations.
When we see something that defies explanation, it's not the laws of physics that are broken, it's the model. New models are built to explain the phenomenon. Newton didn't know about special relativity - does that mean it didn't exist in his time?
Sadly, the link you posted doesn't even "defy explaination"; it's just an optical illusion.
Posted by Kyle :: :: :: Jan 08, 2005 12:45pm
:: :: Jan 08, 2005 12:45pmHear hear! Well spoken (written).
Posted by Henry :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 04:48pm
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 04:48pmThanks for differentiating between the fundies and normies. I went through a United Methodist seminary, and the gulf between the liberal clergy and your average Bush follower is astounding.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 05:49pm
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 05:49pmI definitely do try to make that distinction, but sometimes I get so caught up in whatever I'm pissed off with at the moment that I forget. But it's good to know you guys are out there.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 06:14pm
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 06:14pmI got nowhere else to post this but Where is the Outrage?
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 07:29pm
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 07:29pmIn a country where women are less than 2nd class citizens, you're not going to hear much outrage. Nor will you from a world that views people in 3rd world countries as throwaways.
If the parents and tribesmembers of these children had not refused to adjust their long-held belief systems (hmmmm...does this sound somewhat familiar?), these young women would not be out there at the mercy of soldiers who have no decency or morals.
Only the victims are not to blame in this situation. Everyone else deserves a good thrashing.
If the parents and tribesmembers of these children had not refused to adjust their long-held belief systems (hmmmm...does this sound somewhat familiar?), these young women would not be out there at the mercy of soldiers who have no decency or morals.
Only the victims are not to blame in this situation. Everyone else deserves a good thrashing.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 08:53pm
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 08:53pmRedraven, I wanted to see what somebody else would say before I posted my thoughts on this subject.
I wanted to post this back under the Abu Ghraib posting but it was closed. I find it INCREDIBLY ironic that the world wanted to lynch the US for making prisoners pose for pictures and doing the disgusting things they did to them. But there is no word coming out from nations across the globe against pedophile UN soldiers trading sex for favors or just flat out rape. If the US was guilty of this I can only imagine the media and worldwide frenzy that would come from it.
So let's take it back to Abu Ghraib, people wanted Rumsfield's and Bush's head for it so who are we going to lynch for this debacle? Kofi Annan the General Secretary of the UN? How bout U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland? Where is France and Germany's outrage in this? When are the nations of the world going to condemn pedophiles policemen?
Sorry for the rant, this is all independant thought. I ran a search for this news story and it linked to where Rush Limbaugh had something on his site but I haven't read it. I just find it extrememly hypocritical and pathetic that folks tried to use the Abu Ghraib scandal to lynch the US and our government leaders but mums the word on the UN.
I wanted to post this back under the Abu Ghraib posting but it was closed. I find it INCREDIBLY ironic that the world wanted to lynch the US for making prisoners pose for pictures and doing the disgusting things they did to them. But there is no word coming out from nations across the globe against pedophile UN soldiers trading sex for favors or just flat out rape. If the US was guilty of this I can only imagine the media and worldwide frenzy that would come from it.
So let's take it back to Abu Ghraib, people wanted Rumsfield's and Bush's head for it so who are we going to lynch for this debacle? Kofi Annan the General Secretary of the UN? How bout U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland? Where is France and Germany's outrage in this? When are the nations of the world going to condemn pedophiles policemen?
Sorry for the rant, this is all independant thought. I ran a search for this news story and it linked to where Rush Limbaugh had something on his site but I haven't read it. I just find it extrememly hypocritical and pathetic that folks tried to use the Abu Ghraib scandal to lynch the US and our government leaders but mums the word on the UN.
Posted by Ryland :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 09:27pm
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 09:27pmDon't get me wrong, I think it's terrible what is happening to those poor girls, but I find it incredible cynical and opportunistic of you, and of Rush Limbaugh and all the other right-wing pundits who are going to use this as grist for their various media mills, to bring Abu Ghraib into this. Do you think the UN is trying to gloss over these abuses just to make the U.S. look bad? Even if such idiotic accusations were actually true, does it make the Abu Ghraib scandal any less heinous? You guys have really got a problem with this two-wrongs-make-a-right thing.
Posted by RIck :: :: :: Jan 11, 2005 12:05am
:: :: Jan 11, 2005 12:05amYou've got it all wrong Ryland, it's not two wrongs make a right, it's consistency. If one is wrong then both are wrong(it's not even that, mistreating prisoners and raping children are both wrong PERIOD). Abu Ghraib was wrong and rightfully condemned, where are the voices that spoke out against that now?
I'll tell you where. The left-wing pundits who used Abu Ghraib as grist for their various media mills don't care because they like the UN, and they can't hang Bush for it. It was simply fodder for them to try to lynch Bush and anybody associated with him.
I do not think that the UN is trying to gloss over these abuses, it's just not making the news at all, now is it? It's all about mudslides in California and the CBS debacle. I have seen a couple of obscure mentions of it on the internet but I haven't seen anything about it on the local or national (NBC & ABC not CNN or Fox news) channels. I saw plenty on the news about Bush and the US not giving enough to the tsunami victims, but raping children just isn't juicy enough.
I haven't heard anything Rush had to say about it at all, like I said when I googled the story it brought up a link to Rush's sight but I didn't read it. I haven't listened to what he has to say either, I am just wondering where these voices that cried so loud in April and May are now?
Opportunistic how ironic to use that word. Could it have been used to describe those outraged 8 months ago before the election? Probably. Have I tried to malign any particular group or individuals? I guess you could look at it as speaking poorly of the outraged then, questioning their motives then, and wondering where they are now. I read this the end of last week and have waited to see if it would be discussed and brought out, I even told my wife "looks like the UN may be getting into a little trouble". After the world-wide hissy fit that was pitched over Abu Ghraib I expected to see Hissy Fit Part 2 over this.
I'll tell you where. The left-wing pundits who used Abu Ghraib as grist for their various media mills don't care because they like the UN, and they can't hang Bush for it. It was simply fodder for them to try to lynch Bush and anybody associated with him.
I do not think that the UN is trying to gloss over these abuses, it's just not making the news at all, now is it? It's all about mudslides in California and the CBS debacle. I have seen a couple of obscure mentions of it on the internet but I haven't seen anything about it on the local or national (NBC & ABC not CNN or Fox news) channels. I saw plenty on the news about Bush and the US not giving enough to the tsunami victims, but raping children just isn't juicy enough.
I haven't heard anything Rush had to say about it at all, like I said when I googled the story it brought up a link to Rush's sight but I didn't read it. I haven't listened to what he has to say either, I am just wondering where these voices that cried so loud in April and May are now?
Opportunistic how ironic to use that word. Could it have been used to describe those outraged 8 months ago before the election? Probably. Have I tried to malign any particular group or individuals? I guess you could look at it as speaking poorly of the outraged then, questioning their motives then, and wondering where they are now. I read this the end of last week and have waited to see if it would be discussed and brought out, I even told my wife "looks like the UN may be getting into a little trouble". After the world-wide hissy fit that was pitched over Abu Ghraib I expected to see Hissy Fit Part 2 over this.
Posted by redraven :: :: :: Jan 11, 2005 01:21am
:: :: Jan 11, 2005 01:21amFirst, a disclaimer. I do not approve of the behavior of the UN troops in the Congo. I do not approve of rape. I do not approve of violence against women.
A cursory search on Yahoo [UN troops sex girls] brought up 214,000 entries. This issue has been in the news since June of 2004. I read about it about a month ago, but it seemed to be confined to Belgian troops. There are 72 accusations; 6 have been proven, 14 have strong evidence.
In the Congo, women marry as young as 12 and 13, and bear children, so it is not unusual for what we would consider to be a child, to be sexually active, with the approval of their society. It is a belief among men in that area of the world that if one has sex with a virgin, they will be cured of AIDS. The article you linked to, Rick, indicated that these girls had been pimped out by young men of their tribe. This does not excuse the troops of their behavior, but it says to me that there was duplicity on the part of the very people who they were there to protect.
The thing that bothers me about comparing this situation to Abu Ghraib is that the men who were tortured there, were imprisoned. They had no choice, no hope of getting away from their tormentors. To compare their mistreatment to that of young girls who were taken advantage of sexually (at the behest of their own people) kind of absurd.
As Americans, we hold ourselves up to the world as righteous people who do good things. When we compare piling naked prisoners, who have been tortured and humiliated, to cheerleaders, we deserved to be whipped in the world press. When we torture Iraqi men (a vast majority of whom were guilty of nothing) then we have become the same as Saddam. If we can condone torturing people in Iraq and Cuba, then what stops us from doing so here in the US? Maybe we could set up new age dungeons - certainly our military contains people who are already skilled in the art of torture.
If you look at the items that come up under "UN troops sex girls", you'll find that there are articles about the same types of things happening in Kosovo, and other places around the world. This is not the first time that UN troops have done this sort of thing; they are certainly not the first men to rape and mistreat women in a war zone. It goes back years. Where was your outrage then?
A cursory search on Yahoo [UN troops sex girls] brought up 214,000 entries. This issue has been in the news since June of 2004. I read about it about a month ago, but it seemed to be confined to Belgian troops. There are 72 accusations; 6 have been proven, 14 have strong evidence.
In the Congo, women marry as young as 12 and 13, and bear children, so it is not unusual for what we would consider to be a child, to be sexually active, with the approval of their society. It is a belief among men in that area of the world that if one has sex with a virgin, they will be cured of AIDS. The article you linked to, Rick, indicated that these girls had been pimped out by young men of their tribe. This does not excuse the troops of their behavior, but it says to me that there was duplicity on the part of the very people who they were there to protect.
The thing that bothers me about comparing this situation to Abu Ghraib is that the men who were tortured there, were imprisoned. They had no choice, no hope of getting away from their tormentors. To compare their mistreatment to that of young girls who were taken advantage of sexually (at the behest of their own people) kind of absurd.
As Americans, we hold ourselves up to the world as righteous people who do good things. When we compare piling naked prisoners, who have been tortured and humiliated, to cheerleaders, we deserved to be whipped in the world press. When we torture Iraqi men (a vast majority of whom were guilty of nothing) then we have become the same as Saddam. If we can condone torturing people in Iraq and Cuba, then what stops us from doing so here in the US? Maybe we could set up new age dungeons - certainly our military contains people who are already skilled in the art of torture.
If you look at the items that come up under "UN troops sex girls", you'll find that there are articles about the same types of things happening in Kosovo, and other places around the world. This is not the first time that UN troops have done this sort of thing; they are certainly not the first men to rape and mistreat women in a war zone. It goes back years. Where was your outrage then?
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 11, 2005 11:49am
:: :: Jan 11, 2005 11:49amI haven't seen anything about any of this before now. The only reason I caught a glimpse of it was because it was on Drudge Report the other day. I truly had not seen anything about it happening before or in other locations.
Even given the age of women marrying and having sex in this area of the world it in no way excuses the behavior of these UN personel any more than any defense could even begin to justify the behavior of the Abu Ghraib soldiers. Duplicity be damned. A child molestor is wrong no matter if the 13 year old that is being molested "loved" the molestor or not.
As if the women had any choice or hope of getting away from these UN workers. "Do me or you and your family receives no food"(sorry for the crassness). And it's not the girls fault, it's the UN workers fault. The girls are the victims here. The UN workers are the guilty ones here just as the US soldiers are the guilty ones at Abu Ghraib. There is no justification for the crime that was committed here any more than any other rape/molestation can be justified because "she liked it" or "she wanted it too" or "they do it that way in that part of the world". That would be like the Congo sending troops to help with the mudslides and flooding out in California and having sex with 13 year olds and them justifing it by saying "that's the way we do it back home".
As far as the Americans holding ourseleves up to the world as righteous people who do good things, you have a point there. I guess the US set themselves up on a pedastal begging to be knocked off.
Even given the age of women marrying and having sex in this area of the world it in no way excuses the behavior of these UN personel any more than any defense could even begin to justify the behavior of the Abu Ghraib soldiers. Duplicity be damned. A child molestor is wrong no matter if the 13 year old that is being molested "loved" the molestor or not.
As if the women had any choice or hope of getting away from these UN workers. "Do me or you and your family receives no food"(sorry for the crassness). And it's not the girls fault, it's the UN workers fault. The girls are the victims here. The UN workers are the guilty ones here just as the US soldiers are the guilty ones at Abu Ghraib. There is no justification for the crime that was committed here any more than any other rape/molestation can be justified because "she liked it" or "she wanted it too" or "they do it that way in that part of the world". That would be like the Congo sending troops to help with the mudslides and flooding out in California and having sex with 13 year olds and them justifing it by saying "that's the way we do it back home".
As far as the Americans holding ourseleves up to the world as righteous people who do good things, you have a point there. I guess the US set themselves up on a pedastal begging to be knocked off.
Posted by Damion :: :: :: Jan 11, 2005 01:50am
:: :: Jan 11, 2005 01:50amIf you're complaining the media is covering the wrong stories, get in line. CNN just cancelled Crossfire in an effort to get back to real news, as opposed to hardcore spin, which seems to indicate even the honchos there were sick of today's media coverage (I'm sure ratings might have had a thing or two to do with things, but I haven't seen anything like that mentioned in the stories I've read).
It'll get news coverage only if the audience is interested, and, let's face it, most Americans (I'm assuming you're American, but for some reason I'm thinking you might be Canadian... either way, I'll run with the assumption) couldn't give two rips about some UN soldiers messing around with 14 year old girls. I mean, sure, if you tell them, they'll be offended (hopefully, at least) and indignant, but if you had them choose whether they'd rather hear about that or who won the People's Choice Awards, they'd probably choose the latter. So, unless it's an American soldier, or American girl, you probably won't hear much about it in America.
And, Tucker Carlson is moving to MSNBC. Show of hands -- was anyone surprised?
It'll get news coverage only if the audience is interested, and, let's face it, most Americans (I'm assuming you're American, but for some reason I'm thinking you might be Canadian... either way, I'll run with the assumption) couldn't give two rips about some UN soldiers messing around with 14 year old girls. I mean, sure, if you tell them, they'll be offended (hopefully, at least) and indignant, but if you had them choose whether they'd rather hear about that or who won the People's Choice Awards, they'd probably choose the latter. So, unless it's an American soldier, or American girl, you probably won't hear much about it in America.
And, Tucker Carlson is moving to MSNBC. Show of hands -- was anyone surprised?
Posted by martin :: :: :: Jan 11, 2005 12:15am
:: :: Jan 11, 2005 12:15amI don't know if you've seen this.
I haven't found reference to this in news sources that I am more familiar with... but I did a double-take at the link that lead me to the article.
I haven't found reference to this in news sources that I am more familiar with... but I did a double-take at the link that lead me to the article.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 11, 2005 11:26am
:: :: Jan 11, 2005 11:26amThe Most Assinine Defense Award goes to: The Cheereleader defense
Wouldn't it be nice if common sense could be used in the courtroom:
Defense: So you see cheereleaders do pyramids all the time
Prosecution: What were they cheering for?
Defense: What do you mean?
Prosecution: What were they so excited about that they were cheering?
Defense: Well, ahhhh, I mean, ahhhh
Prosecution: Then knock that nonsense off
I mean, the whole Abu Ghraib thing is bad but now this idiot comes out and makes us all look even stupiderest.
Wouldn't it be nice if common sense could be used in the courtroom:
Defense: So you see cheereleaders do pyramids all the time
Prosecution: What were they cheering for?
Defense: What do you mean?
Prosecution: What were they so excited about that they were cheering?
Defense: Well, ahhhh, I mean, ahhhh
Prosecution: Then knock that nonsense off
I mean, the whole Abu Ghraib thing is bad but now this idiot comes out and makes us all look even stupiderest.
Posted by martin :: :: :: Jan 11, 2005 12:32am
:: :: Jan 11, 2005 12:32amPart of it is that it is the responsibility of member nations to discipline their soldiers. One of the outraged parties here should be the rest of the United Nations.
The reasons for why there hasn't been a large-scale outcry over the behaviour should be pretty obvious, though. The media outlets are covering other things right now and couldn't care less about Congo. Without that awareness, no public outcry.
When the US invaded Iraq, however, the world was watching (because most of them thought it was wrong) and waiting for an opportunity to throw the pro-"freedom" rhetoric that certain warmongers offered back in their faces. It was the only show in town for the media.
At the same time--and it might surprise you to think on this--but the media outlets are probably happier than the supposedly left-wing pundits to put out news that might seem Anti-Bush. It gets people watching, and gets them coming back, because if they are pro-Bush they get defensive, if anti-Bush they feel vindicated. Everyone in the world falls into one of those two categories right now.
The reasons for why there hasn't been a large-scale outcry over the behaviour should be pretty obvious, though. The media outlets are covering other things right now and couldn't care less about Congo. Without that awareness, no public outcry.
When the US invaded Iraq, however, the world was watching (because most of them thought it was wrong) and waiting for an opportunity to throw the pro-"freedom" rhetoric that certain warmongers offered back in their faces. It was the only show in town for the media.
At the same time--and it might surprise you to think on this--but the media outlets are probably happier than the supposedly left-wing pundits to put out news that might seem Anti-Bush. It gets people watching, and gets them coming back, because if they are pro-Bush they get defensive, if anti-Bush they feel vindicated. Everyone in the world falls into one of those two categories right now.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 11, 2005 11:27am
:: :: Jan 11, 2005 11:27amPretty much the point I was trying to make.
Posted by martin :: :: :: Jan 11, 2005 11:47am
:: :: Jan 11, 2005 11:47amOf course, while the situation does lend itself to comparison with the Abu Ghraib shenanigans, I think to make that comparison and ask where the outrage is--as though the outrage should be the same--is to ignore the context behind the Abu Ghraib shenanigans and the context behind the Congo situation.
It is more than a appropriately reductive to say that both are merely examples of a military power abusing that power.
This is not to say that there should not be outrage over the Congo situation.
It is more than a appropriately reductive to say that both are merely examples of a military power abusing that power.
This is not to say that there should not be outrage over the Congo situation.
Posted by Rick :: :: :: Jan 11, 2005 11:53am
:: :: Jan 11, 2005 11:53amThe outrage should be at the abuse of power and inappropriate conduct of the personel involved.
The Abu Ghraib comparison was just that, a comparison showing a similar(yet different) situation that the world had a hissy fit over but seems unconcerned with the Congo abuses.
The Abu Ghraib comparison was just that, a comparison showing a similar(yet different) situation that the world had a hissy fit over but seems unconcerned with the Congo abuses.
Posted by David S :: :: :: Jan 11, 2005 03:30am
:: :: Jan 11, 2005 03:30amThose were some cheap hoes. The outrage should be over how bad they got riped off. 1.50 and two eggs? 2.20 and a packet of milk?? These girls weren't just exploited, they were robbed.
Posted by frothynoodlesoup :: :: :: Jan 10, 2005 08:02pm
:: :: Jan 10, 2005 08:02pmOK Ryland, great post.
now heres my two cents worth.
all religions follow the same god... even athiesm.
my arguements for this case:
it seems to me that everyone pretty much worships the same god (or gods). the number and the names are just different. If you asked one hundred people, from one hundred different religions what word best describes their god(s) the most common one would most likely be good, or something like that.
Most religions recognize their gods as the ones who created the world, and man, and all things in them. They all say that all other gods are false, but religions come from different parts of the world, and spirits could be called false gods. If you look hard enough though you will find miracle workers (if you want to believe in that sort of thing) from pretty much any faith.
and also if god is all caring and all loving, i dont think he's going to send anyone strait to hell because they were wrong or misinformed about something. pretty much i believe that being a good person is good enough to get you into heaven, not something like swearing an oath to a god to recieve eternal life.
as far as athiest go, they generally seem to be of the good people lot. for the most part they dont like bad people, and they seem to adhere to their morals better than alot of religious people.
but hey, i could be wrong, and there could be a loophole for serial rapist, and other generally bad people to get everlasting life in paradise or whatever you want to believe.
now heres my two cents worth.
all religions follow the same god... even athiesm.
my arguements for this case:
it seems to me that everyone pretty much worships the same god (or gods). the number and the names are just different. If you asked one hundred people, from one hundred different religions what word best describes their god(s) the most common one would most likely be good, or something like that.
Most religions recognize their gods as the ones who created the world, and man, and all things in them. They all say that all other gods are false, but religions come from different parts of the world, and spirits could be called false gods. If you look hard enough though you will find miracle workers (if you want to believe in that sort of thing) from pretty much any faith.
and also if god is all caring and all loving, i dont think he's going to send anyone strait to hell because they were wrong or misinformed about something. pretty much i believe that being a good person is good enough to get you into heaven, not something like swearing an oath to a god to recieve eternal life.
as far as athiest go, they generally seem to be of the good people lot. for the most part they dont like bad people, and they seem to adhere to their morals better than alot of religious people.
but hey, i could be wrong, and there could be a loophole for serial rapist, and other generally bad people to get everlasting life in paradise or whatever you want to believe.
As far the symbols of religion go , your right , people are sick of it , they sick of hearing about a supposed god that THEY DON"T BELIEVE IN being spoon-fed to them in their daily life,2 examples,THE TEN COMMANDMENTS in the courthouse in Alabama was removed and SHOULD be busted into a couple zillion pieces, but that's beside the point. Example 2 this past christ--mas season,a low level uproar occured in a few towns around AMERICA about CHRIS-STAIN based symbols and religious propanda being put up for the yearly festivites, and in city halls,schools,Librarys, ETC. This is america , NOT EVERYBODY IN AMERICA is a christ--stain, when christ--stains learn to finally accept and respect others views and beliefs without spewing off their hatefull rehortic and condemming people for those beliefs, the world will be a better place. For now, people are getting tired of Christianity and its dogma.
Good post ryland !