They want the world to believe THEY are peaceful...
jon@af
12-02-2009, 08:59 PM
* * * Call it what you wish; it's simply the truth.
* * * The more who understand this, the better educated
they will be about the real enemy of our culture, and our
country.
Unless you can contact and interview every single Muslim in the United States, there is no way you can call this "the truth." At all. AT ALL.
I can in no way respect anything you've said for the simple fact that you've allowed your bigotry and intolerance get in the way of basic reasoning and tried to submit someone's opinion as fact.
Additionally, as far as I'm concerned, our country is multi-cultural. That means we host and support a plethora of beliefs and cultures, including Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and yes, even Islam.
But I guess the only one that warrants someone being called a true American is Christianity.
Anyway, I digress, the only thing I learned from this "interesting" information is that you are obviously a bigot against people who practice Islam. You can argue it all you want, but calling them the enemy of our culture is a sure sign of your own hatred. You know, there was once an infamous person who called a specific people the enemy of his people's culture - his name was Hitler. Think about that.
* * * The more who understand this, the better educated
they will be about the real enemy of our culture, and our
country.
Unless you can contact and interview every single Muslim in the United States, there is no way you can call this "the truth." At all. AT ALL.
I can in no way respect anything you've said for the simple fact that you've allowed your bigotry and intolerance get in the way of basic reasoning and tried to submit someone's opinion as fact.
Additionally, as far as I'm concerned, our country is multi-cultural. That means we host and support a plethora of beliefs and cultures, including Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and yes, even Islam.
But I guess the only one that warrants someone being called a true American is Christianity.
Anyway, I digress, the only thing I learned from this "interesting" information is that you are obviously a bigot against people who practice Islam. You can argue it all you want, but calling them the enemy of our culture is a sure sign of your own hatred. You know, there was once an infamous person who called a specific people the enemy of his people's culture - his name was Hitler. Think about that.
HotZ28
12-02-2009, 09:40 PM
They are usually very happy to be in the US because they are free from having radical Islamists tell them what to do all the time.... they are free to practise their religion in peace, just as American law permits them to.
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/7348/headdance.gif
Are they the walking time bombs that all the previous
terrorists have turned out to be? For a good example of a good Muslim "walking time bomb" who was once enjoying the freedom to practice his religion in America, Click Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6532904/Fort-Hood-massacre-Gunman-linked-to-al-Qaeda-as-he-awakes-from-coma.html)! :newburn:BTW, President Barack Obama will have to personally sign the death warrant of Major Nidal Malik Hasan if he is convicted and sentenced to be executed for the Fort Hood massacre. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6531599/Fort-Hood-massacre-Barack-Obama-would-have-to-sign-death-warrant.html)
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/8854/yeswecan1530432i.jpg
http://img260.imageshack.us/img260/7348/headdance.gif
Are they the walking time bombs that all the previous
terrorists have turned out to be? For a good example of a good Muslim "walking time bomb" who was once enjoying the freedom to practice his religion in America, Click Here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6532904/Fort-Hood-massacre-Gunman-linked-to-al-Qaeda-as-he-awakes-from-coma.html)! :newburn:BTW, President Barack Obama will have to personally sign the death warrant of Major Nidal Malik Hasan if he is convicted and sentenced to be executed for the Fort Hood massacre. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6531599/Fort-Hood-massacre-Barack-Obama-would-have-to-sign-death-warrant.html)
http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/8854/yeswecan1530432i.jpg
Shpuker
12-02-2009, 11:56 PM
I'm gona laugh if he doesn't sign off to kill the guy. The mystery will be solved
thegladhatter
12-03-2009, 09:51 PM
Islam’s World-Wide Threat:
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a facade for all other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table.
Here's how it works. (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book - 2007).
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace in never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel.
-- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a facade for all other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table.
Here's how it works. (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book - 2007).
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
This is the case in:
United States -- Muslim 0.6%
Australia -- Muslim 1.5%
Canada -- Muslim 1.9%
China -- Muslim 1.8%
Italy -- Muslim 1.5%
Norway -- Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark -- Muslim 2%
Germany -- Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom -- Muslim 2.7%
Spain -- Muslim 4%
Thailand -- Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France -- Muslim 8%
Philippines -- Muslim 5%
Sweden -- Muslim 5%
Switzerland -- Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands -- Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago -- Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam and results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam, with opposition to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana -- Muslim 10%
India -- Muslim 13.4%
Israel -- Muslim 16%
Kenya -- Muslim 10%
Russia -- Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, and the burnings of Christian churches and Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia -- Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, and ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia -- Muslim 40%
Chad -- Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon -- Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, and Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania -- Muslim 70%
Malaysia -- Muslim 60.4%
Qatar -- Muslim 77.5%
Sudan -- Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation and violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, and even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, and move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced and in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh -- Muslim 83%
Egypt -- Muslim 90%
Gaza -- Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia -- Muslim 86.1%
Iran -- Muslim 98%
Iraq -- Muslim 97%
Jordan -- Muslim 92%
Morocco -- Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan -- Muslim 97%
Palestine -- Muslim 99%
Syria -- Muslim 90%
Tajikistan -- Muslim 90%
Turkey -- Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates -- Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of 'Dar-es-Salaam' -- the Islamic House of Peace. Here there's supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, and the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan -- Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia -- Muslim 100%
Somalia -- Muslim 100%
Yemen -- Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace in never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate and spew hatred, and satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
'Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me and my brother against our father; my family against my cousins and the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel.
-- Leon Uris, 'The Haj'
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, and within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams and extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Today's 1.5 billion Muslims make up 22% of the world's population. But their birth rates dwarf the birth rates of Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews, and all other believers. Muslims will exceed 50% of the world's population by the end of this century.
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond's book: Slavery, Terrorism and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
kris
12-05-2009, 10:51 AM
Excellent question BNaylor!
I have been a member of at least 10 churches in 5 different states, CHRISTIAN churches, and not one had Any preacher preach to do harm to
your enemies, or the enemies of Christ!
( that's not counting churches I've visited and preacher in chapel at college, none of them have either!)
Then those preachers are only preaching what they want.
Exodus 35:2
2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
Leviticus 24:16
16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
If I am a impressionable person that is reading the bible, this is telling me to kill quite a few people because they don't have the same views as me, correct?
I have been a member of at least 10 churches in 5 different states, CHRISTIAN churches, and not one had Any preacher preach to do harm to
your enemies, or the enemies of Christ!
( that's not counting churches I've visited and preacher in chapel at college, none of them have either!)
Then those preachers are only preaching what they want.
Exodus 35:2
2 Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.
Leviticus 24:16
16 And he that blasphemeth the name of the LORD, he shall surely be put to death, and all the congregation shall certainly stone him: as well the stranger, as he that is born in the land, when he blasphemeth the name of the Lord, shall be put to death.
If I am a impressionable person that is reading the bible, this is telling me to kill quite a few people because they don't have the same views as me, correct?
CL8
12-05-2009, 12:17 PM
If I am a impressionable person that is reading the bible, this is telling me to kill quite a few people because they don't have the same views as me, correct?Thats the problem Kris, too many people don't think for themselves, nor do they understand the Bible. They are too impressionable.
When Christ came, he emphasized salvation is by FAITH not the LAW.
Remember he preached and taught forgiveness. Thats why you don't see groups of Christians putting to death sinners. Rather, they reach out to them in love to come to Jesus for forgiveness of sin.
When Christ came, he emphasized salvation is by FAITH not the LAW.
Remember he preached and taught forgiveness. Thats why you don't see groups of Christians putting to death sinners. Rather, they reach out to them in love to come to Jesus for forgiveness of sin.
MagicRat
12-06-2009, 08:29 AM
Islam’s World-Wide Threat:
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a facade for all other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
Cute analysis, but this is a gross over-simplification of the process of nation-building. Muslim nations are the way they are due to complex historical and political forces, and not just the existence of Islam.
While I agree with this statement of the end-product of Islam as we know it, this situation exists because there has not been a strong alternative presented in Islamic nations for the people to consider.
So Islam wants to take over the world? This is nothing new. Christianity wanted (and still wants) to do the same thing.
There is a reason why Europe, The Americas and many other parts of the world are Christian..... because Christian -European zealots fought and conquered these domains, slaughtering everyone who opposed them and substituted their own Christian methods of political and economic control.
The reason why the "Free World" is free is not due to Christinaity. If the radical Christians could have their way, Christian nations would be just as oppressive as the Muslim ones.
As I stated earlier, it is due to the centuries of struggle by secularists and moderate Christians to fight for a free and democratic secular society.
Islam is not the enemy. The enemy is extremist ideology, be it Islam, Communism, fascism or religion. The west will NEVER conquor Islam, and trying to do so is misguided. The key is to encourage moderate Islam to incorporate a western value system of freedom and a respect for individuality.
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components. The religious component is a facade for all other components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
Cute analysis, but this is a gross over-simplification of the process of nation-building. Muslim nations are the way they are due to complex historical and political forces, and not just the existence of Islam.
While I agree with this statement of the end-product of Islam as we know it, this situation exists because there has not been a strong alternative presented in Islamic nations for the people to consider.
So Islam wants to take over the world? This is nothing new. Christianity wanted (and still wants) to do the same thing.
There is a reason why Europe, The Americas and many other parts of the world are Christian..... because Christian -European zealots fought and conquered these domains, slaughtering everyone who opposed them and substituted their own Christian methods of political and economic control.
The reason why the "Free World" is free is not due to Christinaity. If the radical Christians could have their way, Christian nations would be just as oppressive as the Muslim ones.
As I stated earlier, it is due to the centuries of struggle by secularists and moderate Christians to fight for a free and democratic secular society.
Islam is not the enemy. The enemy is extremist ideology, be it Islam, Communism, fascism or religion. The west will NEVER conquor Islam, and trying to do so is misguided. The key is to encourage moderate Islam to incorporate a western value system of freedom and a respect for individuality.
CL8
12-07-2009, 12:29 AM
Cute analysis, but this is a gross over-simplification of the process of nation-building. Muslim nations are the way they are due to complex historical and political forces, and not just the existence of Islam.
While I agree with this statement of the end-product of Islam as we know it, this situation exists because there has not been a strong alternative presented in Islamic nations for the people to consider.
So Islam wants to take over the world? This is nothing new. Christianity wanted (and still wants) to do the same thing.
There is a reason why Europe, The Americas and many other parts of the world are Christian..... because Christian -European zealots fought and conquered these domains, slaughtering everyone who opposed them and substituted their own Christian methods of political and economic control. MagicRat, you have no documentation to back this up.
Take a look at the article on this site. The Christian "zealots" weren't slaughtering, but rather attempting to convert them (not force them) to a belief in Christ and Christian doctrine.
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0400/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0400/stories/0401_0129.html
Remember too, a large part of Indian deaths was from diseases like smallpox they weren't immune to. NOT outright slaughter.
The reason why the "Free World" is free is not due to Christinaity. If the radical Christians could have their way, Christian nations would be just as oppressive as the Muslim ones. Site your evidence of this. America has been a "Judeo-Christian" country, and has NEVER had a history of abuse and oppression that Muslim countries have.
As I stated earlier, it is due to the centuries of struggle by secularists and moderate Christians to fight for a free and democratic secular society.
Islam is not the enemy. The enemy is extremist ideology, be it Islam, Communism, fascism or religion. The west will NEVER conquor Islam, and trying to do so is misguided. The key is to encourage moderate Islam to incorporate a western value system of freedom and a respect for individuality.You are right the west will never conquer Islam, but one day, Jesus Christ himself will.:)
While I agree with this statement of the end-product of Islam as we know it, this situation exists because there has not been a strong alternative presented in Islamic nations for the people to consider.
So Islam wants to take over the world? This is nothing new. Christianity wanted (and still wants) to do the same thing.
There is a reason why Europe, The Americas and many other parts of the world are Christian..... because Christian -European zealots fought and conquered these domains, slaughtering everyone who opposed them and substituted their own Christian methods of political and economic control. MagicRat, you have no documentation to back this up.
Take a look at the article on this site. The Christian "zealots" weren't slaughtering, but rather attempting to convert them (not force them) to a belief in Christ and Christian doctrine.
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0400/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0400/stories/0401_0129.html
Remember too, a large part of Indian deaths was from diseases like smallpox they weren't immune to. NOT outright slaughter.
The reason why the "Free World" is free is not due to Christinaity. If the radical Christians could have their way, Christian nations would be just as oppressive as the Muslim ones. Site your evidence of this. America has been a "Judeo-Christian" country, and has NEVER had a history of abuse and oppression that Muslim countries have.
As I stated earlier, it is due to the centuries of struggle by secularists and moderate Christians to fight for a free and democratic secular society.
Islam is not the enemy. The enemy is extremist ideology, be it Islam, Communism, fascism or religion. The west will NEVER conquor Islam, and trying to do so is misguided. The key is to encourage moderate Islam to incorporate a western value system of freedom and a respect for individuality.You are right the west will never conquer Islam, but one day, Jesus Christ himself will.:)
MagicRat
12-07-2009, 11:05 AM
MagicRat, you have no documentation to back this up.
Take a look at the article on this site. The Christian "zealots" weren't slaughtering, but rather attempting to convert them (not force them) to a belief in Christ and Christian doctrine.
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0400/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0400/stories/0401_0129.html
Remember too, a large part of Indian deaths was from diseases like smallpox they weren't immune to. NOT outright slaughter.
You know, the victors write the history, often to their own advantage.
The native peoples were largely obliterated by the Europeans. The diseases were fortuitous uses of biological warfare; their existence was exploited by the Europeans as a way of removing the natives. If the Europeans had no ulterior motivations, they would not have occupied the lands of the dying natives.
The conquered peoples have a much different view than yours:
http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/cq328native.aspx
http://www.answers.com/topic/american-indian
Even Christian scholars recognize the religious-driven excesses and wrong-doings of some conquoring Eurpoeans:
http://newhousefoundation.org/subpage13.html
Much colonialism occured outside of the United States, where the abuses were often more excessive:
http://blog.aurorahistoryboutique.com/european-colonialism-in-south-america/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/126237/colonialism/25892/Slave-trade
Other references or genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples
http://theminaretonline.com/?p=1770
But to put this in an historical perspective, the Europeans did a fine job of slaughtering millions of their own people throughout history. The fate of native populations was not much different.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#European
Site your evidence of this. America has been a "Judeo-Christian" country, and has NEVER had a history of abuse and oppression that Muslim countries have.
That statement is utterly false, unless you do not consider Africans and women to be people. Historical American oppression was as bad or worse than any Muslim nation today. Here are some examples, which were conducted by (as you say) a Judeo-Christian nation, with the cooperation of millions of 'good' Christians.
1. Slavery. For well over 100 years, European colonialists, and later, Americans, abused and oppressed hundreds of thousands of Africans. Slavery was American law for many decades. I don't see how one can possibly abuse and oppress people MORE than making them slaves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
Even after slavery, many African-Americans were abused by segregationist policies and racist white attitudes. African - Americans only achieved full equality under the law within my lifetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_in_the_United_States
2.Oppression of Women: Women only gained the right to vote, to run for political office, property rights etc. in 1920, in the US. Before this, women were restricted in legal rights, opportunity to own property, self determination, education, careers etc, both in terms of law and in terms of social convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion
.
3. Oppression of the Landless: At the time of the US constitution's writing, and in the early years of the US, ,only to white American men who owned land received the full benefits of the law.
Now, I am not beating up on Americans here. Many other allegedly civilized nations at the time had similar policies and conditions. Also, I respect American society's work and sacrifice in the past to rectify these inequities.
You are right the west will never conquer Islam, but one day, Jesus Christ himself will.:)
This is the problem. Why should humanity wait for a fictional magical being to solve our problems? Expecting religious ideology to fix problems essentially absolves all of humanity to fix the problems ourselves. Such attitudes can be cataclysmic.
Radical Muslims believe the same thing...... that is bringing an apocalypse upon the world will hasten judgment day so Allah will come to earth, save the righteous Muslims and condemn the infidels (like you and me) to fiery death. This is how we get Islamic nations like Iran pursuing the construction of nuclear weapons. Many Islamics believe their use will hasten judgment day, so all THEIR problems (like the Christians and the Jews) will be fixed.
Given the way god and Jesus have been no-shows for literally hundreds of scheduled dates (as calculated by religious scholars) I do not believe they will show up at all. Therefore, lets not screw up the planet! Lets learn to get along with Muslims and help them overcome the excesses of radical Islam, just the way the west has largely freed itself from the excesses of radical Christianity.
Take a look at the article on this site. The Christian "zealots" weren't slaughtering, but rather attempting to convert them (not force them) to a belief in Christ and Christian doctrine.
http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0400/frameset_reset.html?http://www.nebraskastudies.org/0400/stories/0401_0129.html
Remember too, a large part of Indian deaths was from diseases like smallpox they weren't immune to. NOT outright slaughter.
You know, the victors write the history, often to their own advantage.
The native peoples were largely obliterated by the Europeans. The diseases were fortuitous uses of biological warfare; their existence was exploited by the Europeans as a way of removing the natives. If the Europeans had no ulterior motivations, they would not have occupied the lands of the dying natives.
The conquered peoples have a much different view than yours:
http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/cq328native.aspx
http://www.answers.com/topic/american-indian
Even Christian scholars recognize the religious-driven excesses and wrong-doings of some conquoring Eurpoeans:
http://newhousefoundation.org/subpage13.html
Much colonialism occured outside of the United States, where the abuses were often more excessive:
http://blog.aurorahistoryboutique.com/european-colonialism-in-south-america/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/126237/colonialism/25892/Slave-trade
Other references or genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples
http://theminaretonline.com/?p=1770
But to put this in an historical perspective, the Europeans did a fine job of slaughtering millions of their own people throughout history. The fate of native populations was not much different.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#European
Site your evidence of this. America has been a "Judeo-Christian" country, and has NEVER had a history of abuse and oppression that Muslim countries have.
That statement is utterly false, unless you do not consider Africans and women to be people. Historical American oppression was as bad or worse than any Muslim nation today. Here are some examples, which were conducted by (as you say) a Judeo-Christian nation, with the cooperation of millions of 'good' Christians.
1. Slavery. For well over 100 years, European colonialists, and later, Americans, abused and oppressed hundreds of thousands of Africans. Slavery was American law for many decades. I don't see how one can possibly abuse and oppress people MORE than making them slaves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States
Even after slavery, many African-Americans were abused by segregationist policies and racist white attitudes. African - Americans only achieved full equality under the law within my lifetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation_in_the_United_States
2.Oppression of Women: Women only gained the right to vote, to run for political office, property rights etc. in 1920, in the US. Before this, women were restricted in legal rights, opportunity to own property, self determination, education, careers etc, both in terms of law and in terms of social convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion
.
3. Oppression of the Landless: At the time of the US constitution's writing, and in the early years of the US, ,only to white American men who owned land received the full benefits of the law.
Now, I am not beating up on Americans here. Many other allegedly civilized nations at the time had similar policies and conditions. Also, I respect American society's work and sacrifice in the past to rectify these inequities.
You are right the west will never conquer Islam, but one day, Jesus Christ himself will.:)
This is the problem. Why should humanity wait for a fictional magical being to solve our problems? Expecting religious ideology to fix problems essentially absolves all of humanity to fix the problems ourselves. Such attitudes can be cataclysmic.
Radical Muslims believe the same thing...... that is bringing an apocalypse upon the world will hasten judgment day so Allah will come to earth, save the righteous Muslims and condemn the infidels (like you and me) to fiery death. This is how we get Islamic nations like Iran pursuing the construction of nuclear weapons. Many Islamics believe their use will hasten judgment day, so all THEIR problems (like the Christians and the Jews) will be fixed.
Given the way god and Jesus have been no-shows for literally hundreds of scheduled dates (as calculated by religious scholars) I do not believe they will show up at all. Therefore, lets not screw up the planet! Lets learn to get along with Muslims and help them overcome the excesses of radical Islam, just the way the west has largely freed itself from the excesses of radical Christianity.
GForce957
12-07-2009, 12:17 PM
Well said MagicRat, although I disagree with you on the fictional magical being part, we should try and fix as much of these problems as we can.
CL8
12-07-2009, 02:56 PM
You know, the victors write the history, often to their own advantage.
The native peoples were largely obliterated by the Europeans. The diseases were fortuitous uses of biological warfare; their existence was exploited by the Europeans as a way of removing the natives. If the Europeans had no ulterior motivations, they would not have occupied the lands of the dying natives.
The conquered peoples have a much different view than yours:
http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/cq328native.aspx
http://www.answers.com/topic/american-indian
Even Christian scholars recognize the religious-driven excesses and wrong-doings of some conquoring Eurpoeans:
http://newhousefoundation.org/subpage13.html
Much colonialism occured outside of the United States, where the abuses were often more excessive:
http://blog.aurorahistoryboutique.com/european-colonialism-in-south-america/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/126237/colonialism/25892/Slave-trade
Other references or genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples
http://theminaretonline.com/?p=1770
But to put this in an historical perspective, the Europeans did a fine job of slaughtering millions of their own people throughout history. The fate of native populations was not much different.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#European
ere restricted in legal rights, opportunity to own property, self determination, education, careers etc, both in terms of law and in terms of social convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion
.
MagicRat, I can see you weren't concerned about what was written on those sites.
They agree the major reason for Native American death was NOT genocide and slaughter, but transmission of disease. They also agree even if biological warfare was talked about, there was no evidence of it being implemented, and the diseases were spreading too fast anyway without intentional transmission.
Also the Spanish and Portugal conquistadors were warring for their political, national leaders, NOT for Christ or Christianity.
One of those sites states those Conquistadors also killed PROTESTANT believers, not just Native Americans. That was not from the spirit of Christ.
Other factors to consider when some Europeans fought the Indians is, if it was self defense, because the Native Americans attacked first.
The Christian site you posted states there was national repentance for any wrong done by Jamestown people. The Spanish never have nationally repented for their massacres.
I wonder, has there been national repentance in Muslim countries for their crimes of massacre and genocide?
I will comment on the rest of your post later.
The native peoples were largely obliterated by the Europeans. The diseases were fortuitous uses of biological warfare; their existence was exploited by the Europeans as a way of removing the natives. If the Europeans had no ulterior motivations, they would not have occupied the lands of the dying natives.
The conquered peoples have a much different view than yours:
http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/cq328native.aspx
http://www.answers.com/topic/american-indian
Even Christian scholars recognize the religious-driven excesses and wrong-doings of some conquoring Eurpoeans:
http://newhousefoundation.org/subpage13.html
Much colonialism occured outside of the United States, where the abuses were often more excessive:
http://blog.aurorahistoryboutique.com/european-colonialism-in-south-america/
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/126237/colonialism/25892/Slave-trade
Other references or genocide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_American_indigenous_peoples
http://theminaretonline.com/?p=1770
But to put this in an historical perspective, the Europeans did a fine job of slaughtering millions of their own people throughout history. The fate of native populations was not much different.
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat0.htm#European
ere restricted in legal rights, opportunity to own property, self determination, education, careers etc, both in terms of law and in terms of social convention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitu tion
.
MagicRat, I can see you weren't concerned about what was written on those sites.
They agree the major reason for Native American death was NOT genocide and slaughter, but transmission of disease. They also agree even if biological warfare was talked about, there was no evidence of it being implemented, and the diseases were spreading too fast anyway without intentional transmission.
Also the Spanish and Portugal conquistadors were warring for their political, national leaders, NOT for Christ or Christianity.
One of those sites states those Conquistadors also killed PROTESTANT believers, not just Native Americans. That was not from the spirit of Christ.
Other factors to consider when some Europeans fought the Indians is, if it was self defense, because the Native Americans attacked first.
The Christian site you posted states there was national repentance for any wrong done by Jamestown people. The Spanish never have nationally repented for their massacres.
I wonder, has there been national repentance in Muslim countries for their crimes of massacre and genocide?
I will comment on the rest of your post later.
MagicRat
12-08-2009, 04:20 PM
MagicRat, I can see you weren't concerned about what was written on those sites.
CL8, you might find this hard to believe, but I do not want to annihilate everything you have to say.
When I link a site that might support part of your statement, it does NOT mean I am not paying attention. It means that I (gasp) might actually AGREE with some of what you have to say.
They agree the major reason for Native American death was NOT genocide and slaughter, but transmission of disease. They also agree even if biological warfare was talked about, there was no evidence of it being implemented, and the diseases were spreading too fast anyway without intentional transmission.
I addressed this issue a bit in my earlier post. To clarify, even if the diseases was not intentional, the colonialists did not respect the Native possession of the lands. The colonialists took advantage of the diseases and occupied native lands. If the Europeans had not done so, the native populations would have recovered and they would have reclaimed the territories.
This actually happened with the Inuit (the natives living in the far north).
Also the Spanish and Portugal conquistadors were warring for their political, national leaders, NOT for Christ or Christianity.
One of those sites states those Conquistadors also killed PROTESTANT believers, not just Native Americans. That was not from the spirit of Christ.
I did not think that ANY killing was in the spirit of Christ. But many Conquistadors thought they were good Christians. So did many slaveowners.
So, how did such 'good' christians rationalize the violence and injustice that they metered out?
One excuse that I have heard from some Americans (and Canadians) is that North America was god's gift to the white people, that is, god wanted America to be a Christian state. So Christians coming here, settling the place and displacing the natives was them simply doing god's will.
Now, you may say that such actions are not in the spirit of Christ. But many other Christians believe it to be so. And this is the trouble of doing anything in terms of gods will etc. It is so subject to interpretation as to be a dangerous way of doing anything.
Other factors to consider when some Europeans fought the Indians is, if it was self defense, because the Native Americans attacked first.
No. The Europeans came to America. The natives were already here, and were protecting themselves. This should be self-evident.
Now, if the natives paddled their canoes across the Atlantic and attacked the French on the beaches of Calais, then, yes, I would say the natives attacked first. :)
The Christian site you posted states there was national repentance for any wrong done by Jamestown people. The Spanish never have nationally repented for their massacres.
I wonder, has there been national repentance in Muslim countries for their crimes of massacre and genocide?
Well, this is the trouble. Some muslim countries are experiencing the excesses now that the Christians displayed centuries ago.
Christian nations worked through their excesses through the emergence of new ideas and philosophies, many of them secular in origin, such as democracy, separation of church and state, feminism, basic human rights and the rule of a secular legal code for all.
The most reprehensible muslim nations have none of these. So, we need to make sure the west gives them such tools...... and NOT murder them all or wait for jesus to come and solve the problem for us. :)
CL8, you might find this hard to believe, but I do not want to annihilate everything you have to say.
When I link a site that might support part of your statement, it does NOT mean I am not paying attention. It means that I (gasp) might actually AGREE with some of what you have to say.
They agree the major reason for Native American death was NOT genocide and slaughter, but transmission of disease. They also agree even if biological warfare was talked about, there was no evidence of it being implemented, and the diseases were spreading too fast anyway without intentional transmission.
I addressed this issue a bit in my earlier post. To clarify, even if the diseases was not intentional, the colonialists did not respect the Native possession of the lands. The colonialists took advantage of the diseases and occupied native lands. If the Europeans had not done so, the native populations would have recovered and they would have reclaimed the territories.
This actually happened with the Inuit (the natives living in the far north).
Also the Spanish and Portugal conquistadors were warring for their political, national leaders, NOT for Christ or Christianity.
One of those sites states those Conquistadors also killed PROTESTANT believers, not just Native Americans. That was not from the spirit of Christ.
I did not think that ANY killing was in the spirit of Christ. But many Conquistadors thought they were good Christians. So did many slaveowners.
So, how did such 'good' christians rationalize the violence and injustice that they metered out?
One excuse that I have heard from some Americans (and Canadians) is that North America was god's gift to the white people, that is, god wanted America to be a Christian state. So Christians coming here, settling the place and displacing the natives was them simply doing god's will.
Now, you may say that such actions are not in the spirit of Christ. But many other Christians believe it to be so. And this is the trouble of doing anything in terms of gods will etc. It is so subject to interpretation as to be a dangerous way of doing anything.
Other factors to consider when some Europeans fought the Indians is, if it was self defense, because the Native Americans attacked first.
No. The Europeans came to America. The natives were already here, and were protecting themselves. This should be self-evident.
Now, if the natives paddled their canoes across the Atlantic and attacked the French on the beaches of Calais, then, yes, I would say the natives attacked first. :)
The Christian site you posted states there was national repentance for any wrong done by Jamestown people. The Spanish never have nationally repented for their massacres.
I wonder, has there been national repentance in Muslim countries for their crimes of massacre and genocide?
Well, this is the trouble. Some muslim countries are experiencing the excesses now that the Christians displayed centuries ago.
Christian nations worked through their excesses through the emergence of new ideas and philosophies, many of them secular in origin, such as democracy, separation of church and state, feminism, basic human rights and the rule of a secular legal code for all.
The most reprehensible muslim nations have none of these. So, we need to make sure the west gives them such tools...... and NOT murder them all or wait for jesus to come and solve the problem for us. :)
blazee
12-08-2009, 04:37 PM
No. The Europeans came to America. The natives were already here, and were protecting themselves. This should be self-evident.
Now, if the natives paddled their canoes across the Atlantic and attacked the French on the beaches of Calais, then, yes, I would say the natives attacked first. :)
:lol:
I just wanted to point out that the Natives in Mexico and Canada were exposed to the same illnesses as those that occupied what is currently the US. Those areas didn't lose anywhere near the percentage of Natives as the US. It really is asinine to claim that the US settlers/army/government wasn't responsible for the decimation of their population.
Also, there is no doubt that the Christians have (by far) committed the most atrocities throughout history, but most of the Christians today aren't like those that came before them. Most now just pick and choose what they want to believe, and what they want to ignore. If you want to see what Christianity looked like generations ago, go no further than the Westboro Baptist Church. While considered nutjobs and/or extremists by some... they are true to the origins of Christianity.
Now, if the natives paddled their canoes across the Atlantic and attacked the French on the beaches of Calais, then, yes, I would say the natives attacked first. :)
:lol:
I just wanted to point out that the Natives in Mexico and Canada were exposed to the same illnesses as those that occupied what is currently the US. Those areas didn't lose anywhere near the percentage of Natives as the US. It really is asinine to claim that the US settlers/army/government wasn't responsible for the decimation of their population.
Also, there is no doubt that the Christians have (by far) committed the most atrocities throughout history, but most of the Christians today aren't like those that came before them. Most now just pick and choose what they want to believe, and what they want to ignore. If you want to see what Christianity looked like generations ago, go no further than the Westboro Baptist Church. While considered nutjobs and/or extremists by some... they are true to the origins of Christianity.
CL8
12-13-2009, 12:04 AM
:lol:
Also, there is no doubt that the Christians have (by far) committed the most atrocities throughout history, but most of the Christians today aren't like those that came before them. Most now just pick and choose what they want to believe, and what they want to ignore. If you want to see what Christianity looked like generations ago, go no further than the Westboro Baptist Church. While considered nutjobs and/or extremists by some... they are true to the origins of Christianity.
So Blazee, are you trying to say That Jesus Christ set the example of Westboro Baptist Church, or Paul, Peter, John, Stephen and James who were all persecuted and all of those but John were killed by the non Christians of their day????!!!!
You don't know what you are talking about!
Also, there is no doubt that the Christians have (by far) committed the most atrocities throughout history, but most of the Christians today aren't like those that came before them. Most now just pick and choose what they want to believe, and what they want to ignore. If you want to see what Christianity looked like generations ago, go no further than the Westboro Baptist Church. While considered nutjobs and/or extremists by some... they are true to the origins of Christianity.
So Blazee, are you trying to say That Jesus Christ set the example of Westboro Baptist Church, or Paul, Peter, John, Stephen and James who were all persecuted and all of those but John were killed by the non Christians of their day????!!!!
You don't know what you are talking about!
blazee
12-13-2009, 09:16 PM
You don't know what you are talking about!I'm sure that it makes you feel better to believe that. You can wrap yourself up in that lie like a warm blanket if it brings you comfort, but the fact of the matter is that your views are completely biased and based on the propaganda that has been used to brainwash you, and my observations are based on facts and history.
To dramatically simplify it, the role of the Christian is to follow Jesus, spread christianity and the word of god, endure a mortal life full of persecution, and be rewarded by heaven in the afterlife.
You think that you are more of a Christian than the WBC? How many times have you stood in front of angry crowds of booing people that wanted to kill you, in order to preach the word of god? How many times have you been stoned (by rocks, not weed) while sharing your love of god with the world? For that matter, to how many creatures have you spread the gospel? How many souls have you warned about eternal damnation? FYI, preaching to other Christians doesn't count, nor does anonymously leaving letters around town or hiding behind a computer to spread lies, ignorance, and propaganda on the internet.
Nearly all Christians today (if honest) would have to answer ZERO to most of those questions. The general attitude today, is that as long as you give lip service on Sunday, its God's job to make sure that you have a happy life. The ways of enduring a life dedicated to giving glory to god, and praising Jesus to achieve salvation in the afterlife have long been forgotten or given up to follow more selfish motivations.
To dramatically simplify it, the role of the Christian is to follow Jesus, spread christianity and the word of god, endure a mortal life full of persecution, and be rewarded by heaven in the afterlife.
You think that you are more of a Christian than the WBC? How many times have you stood in front of angry crowds of booing people that wanted to kill you, in order to preach the word of god? How many times have you been stoned (by rocks, not weed) while sharing your love of god with the world? For that matter, to how many creatures have you spread the gospel? How many souls have you warned about eternal damnation? FYI, preaching to other Christians doesn't count, nor does anonymously leaving letters around town or hiding behind a computer to spread lies, ignorance, and propaganda on the internet.
Nearly all Christians today (if honest) would have to answer ZERO to most of those questions. The general attitude today, is that as long as you give lip service on Sunday, its God's job to make sure that you have a happy life. The ways of enduring a life dedicated to giving glory to god, and praising Jesus to achieve salvation in the afterlife have long been forgotten or given up to follow more selfish motivations.
MagicRat
12-13-2009, 10:44 PM
The Westboro church does take Christianity to its logical extreme and does display the sheer irrationality of organized religion as we know it.
For some reason, they have focused on homosexuality as their cause of choice.
They think about gay sex more than gay people do :), and logically condemn everyone who does not agree with them. Apparently, everyone who does not actively oppose homosexuality is a 'fag enabler' and is going straight to hell.
Imo their position makes no less (and no more) sense than any other Christian ideology. Sure, it is less pleasant, but no less logical.
Frankly, Christians who do not go to such extremes demonstrates the willingness of Christians to modify and pick-and-choose what they believe in, to make it more palatable. The Westboro Church is like 9/11, it demonstrates how fundamentally destructive and harmful religious ideology really is..... and confirms why I want nothing to do with it. :)
For some reason, they have focused on homosexuality as their cause of choice.
They think about gay sex more than gay people do :), and logically condemn everyone who does not agree with them. Apparently, everyone who does not actively oppose homosexuality is a 'fag enabler' and is going straight to hell.
Imo their position makes no less (and no more) sense than any other Christian ideology. Sure, it is less pleasant, but no less logical.
Frankly, Christians who do not go to such extremes demonstrates the willingness of Christians to modify and pick-and-choose what they believe in, to make it more palatable. The Westboro Church is like 9/11, it demonstrates how fundamentally destructive and harmful religious ideology really is..... and confirms why I want nothing to do with it. :)
CL8
12-15-2009, 03:02 AM
Blazee or MagicRat,
Just what do you consider to be "spiritual well being" and wholeness?
Just what do you consider to be "spiritual well being" and wholeness?
blazee
12-15-2009, 04:29 AM
Blazee or MagicRat,
Just what do you consider to be "spiritual well being" and wholeness?By completely ignoring them, does that mean you concede that our posts are correct?
Just what do you consider to be "spiritual well being" and wholeness?By completely ignoring them, does that mean you concede that our posts are correct?
MagicRat
12-15-2009, 10:05 AM
Blazee or MagicRat,
Just what do you consider to be "spiritual well being" and wholeness?
I take it that you are asking what organized philosophy by which do I consider life to be worth living?
I would say, secular humanism:
About secular humanists from this site: (http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_the_AHA)
We strive to bring about a progressive society where being “good without god” is an accepted way to live life. We are accomplishing this through our defense of civil liberties and secular governance, by our outreach to the growing number of people without religious belief or preference, and through a continued refinement and advancement of the humanist worldview.
And from Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Humanism)
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality:
Imo this is the basis for using the innate ability for people to organize themselves for the logical greater good of all people, our society, our environment and the planet in general.
Unlike organized religion, there is no hell for others to threaten us, no heaven to permit others to manipulate us, no dogmatic beliefs that we use to coerce or threaten others. :)
Just what do you consider to be "spiritual well being" and wholeness?
I take it that you are asking what organized philosophy by which do I consider life to be worth living?
I would say, secular humanism:
About secular humanists from this site: (http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_the_AHA)
We strive to bring about a progressive society where being “good without god” is an accepted way to live life. We are accomplishing this through our defense of civil liberties and secular governance, by our outreach to the growing number of people without religious belief or preference, and through a continued refinement and advancement of the humanist worldview.
And from Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Humanism)
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality:
Imo this is the basis for using the innate ability for people to organize themselves for the logical greater good of all people, our society, our environment and the planet in general.
Unlike organized religion, there is no hell for others to threaten us, no heaven to permit others to manipulate us, no dogmatic beliefs that we use to coerce or threaten others. :)
fredjacksonsan
12-15-2009, 11:44 AM
A page or two or three back, there were some posts that might have been in the neighborhood of personal attacks. Let's keep it civil folks - the idea, not the person, should be the target of attacks.
CL8
12-15-2009, 04:13 PM
By completely ignoring them, does that mean you concede that our posts are correct?
Blazee, my question was a response to your post, although I see something has turned you so far from God, there is no convincing you of Gods truth and goodness.
As far as your questions about my spreading the gospel, I will say I have not and do not neglect that, though many Christians do.
Fred, I would like to see your input on this:)
Blazee, my question was a response to your post, although I see something has turned you so far from God, there is no convincing you of Gods truth and goodness.
As far as your questions about my spreading the gospel, I will say I have not and do not neglect that, though many Christians do.
Fred, I would like to see your input on this:)
CL8
12-16-2009, 02:41 AM
I take it that you are asking what organized philosophy by which do I consider life to be worth living?
I would say, secular humanism:
About secular humanists from this site: (http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_the_AHA)
We strive to bring about a progressive society where being “good without god” is an accepted way to live life. We are accomplishing this through our defense of civil liberties and secular governance, by our outreach to the growing number of people without religious belief or preference, and through a continued refinement and advancement of the humanist worldview.
And from Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Humanism)
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality:
Imo this is the basis for using the innate ability for people to organize themselves for the logical greater good of all people, our society, our environment and the planet in general.
Unlike organized religion, there is no hell for others to threaten us, no heaven to permit others to manipulate us, no dogmatic beliefs that we use to coerce or threaten others. :)
You know how I can tell "Humanism" is a flawed belief system?
For all the millenniums it has been around, humans STILL have a serious lack of ethics
(look at all the crime and murder, its no better than it was in biblical times)
On top of that, if humans were perfect they would be able to heal the deep wounds in a soul.
Even with the best of intentions, they cannot.
I would say, secular humanism:
About secular humanists from this site: (http://www.americanhumanist.org/Who_We_Are/About_the_AHA)
We strive to bring about a progressive society where being “good without god” is an accepted way to live life. We are accomplishing this through our defense of civil liberties and secular governance, by our outreach to the growing number of people without religious belief or preference, and through a continued refinement and advancement of the humanist worldview.
And from Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_Humanism)
Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality:
Imo this is the basis for using the innate ability for people to organize themselves for the logical greater good of all people, our society, our environment and the planet in general.
Unlike organized religion, there is no hell for others to threaten us, no heaven to permit others to manipulate us, no dogmatic beliefs that we use to coerce or threaten others. :)
You know how I can tell "Humanism" is a flawed belief system?
For all the millenniums it has been around, humans STILL have a serious lack of ethics
(look at all the crime and murder, its no better than it was in biblical times)
On top of that, if humans were perfect they would be able to heal the deep wounds in a soul.
Even with the best of intentions, they cannot.
MagicRat
12-16-2009, 10:18 AM
You know how I can tell "Humanism" is a flawed belief system?
For all the millenniums it has been around, humans STILL have a serious lack of ethics
(look at all the crime and murder, its no better than it was in biblical times)
On top of that, if humans were perfect they would be able to heal the deep wounds in a soul.
Even with the best of intentions, they cannot.
I think you misunderstand humanism. It is not a religion, nor is it a belief system. It is a philosophy and a guide to life which seeks to 'strive' to correct the inherent flaws of mankind through the use of logic, reason and altruism.
IMO humanity often lacks ethics because not all people are true humanists. Religion is no better.... often, places in the world, and in history where religion dominates often are extremely unethical.
Remember, organized religion is deeply flawed too, because the humans that invented it are flawed.
The key word in humanism is "strive" to achieve these goals....
Their goals are based on logic, reason and altruism.......which are, imp far superior to the goals of religion.....( spreading myths and fairy-tales....... bribing followers to do the bidding of religious overseers with fake rewards of life everlasting, wanting to take over the world..... defeating other religions, etc)
For all the millenniums it has been around, humans STILL have a serious lack of ethics
(look at all the crime and murder, its no better than it was in biblical times)
On top of that, if humans were perfect they would be able to heal the deep wounds in a soul.
Even with the best of intentions, they cannot.
I think you misunderstand humanism. It is not a religion, nor is it a belief system. It is a philosophy and a guide to life which seeks to 'strive' to correct the inherent flaws of mankind through the use of logic, reason and altruism.
IMO humanity often lacks ethics because not all people are true humanists. Religion is no better.... often, places in the world, and in history where religion dominates often are extremely unethical.
Remember, organized religion is deeply flawed too, because the humans that invented it are flawed.
The key word in humanism is "strive" to achieve these goals....
Their goals are based on logic, reason and altruism.......which are, imp far superior to the goals of religion.....( spreading myths and fairy-tales....... bribing followers to do the bidding of religious overseers with fake rewards of life everlasting, wanting to take over the world..... defeating other religions, etc)
fredjacksonsan
12-16-2009, 11:39 AM
CL8, you asked for it and I have some time, so aside from my apologies for the long post:
I shortened the Gladhatter’s post for easier reading:
…Islam …. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components….
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table.
Here's how it works. (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book - 2007).
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
This is the case in:
United States, Australia, Canada, China, Italy, Norway
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, Thailand
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France, Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Trinidad & Tobago
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves … under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
I eliminated the other percentages, since I have no experience of them. Most Americans believe that Islam is a peaceful religion for the most part, in agreement with the above post.
For the 2-5%, I have a friend from Germany. He has told me about the situation there, and it matches what is posted.
Above 5%….well we’ve all seen the news broadcasts about France. We also have a member here at AF from Sweden….I haven’t seen him post for quite awhile, but he did have a long post a couple years ago about how Muslims there were demanding free land from the government where they could build their mosques. There were other demands also, but I don’t recall what they were and couldn’t locate the thread.
So it seems that this post of gladhatters is fairly correct, as far as I’ve mentioned.
I’ve also known several Muslims, and all of them said that the Koran is an instruction guide for how to live your life. I would say micromanage, because everything is detailed, from how to wash, eat, dress, and even includes your will, which is laid out to exactly who gets what and how much. And, yes, women get much less than men.
…
I will say this about both the Bible and the Koran, as well as any ancient text: If you are not reading the original, then what you are reading has been translated and edited several times. For example, how many versions of the Bible are there? I can think of the King James version and the New International Version offhand (thanks for the New Int’l, Rat) …and no, no others come to mind for me although I’m sure there’s an “official” Catholic version. I’m sure that some well meaning medieval monk changed some things when he was hand copying the texts, to match the current audience or the current church’s teachings. Inquisition, anyone? Yeah, they didn’t make any changes, did they? :sarcasm1:
The Islamic men I’ve known said that the Koran was translated from the teachings of Mohammad, word for word. But I’ve read a good bit of the Koran, and frankly the style of writing changes so frequently it was apparent to me that someone else had written/inserted many portions, so I don’t think that the Koran is as original as stated.
…
Islam is not the enemy. The enemy is extremist ideology, be it Islam, Communism, fascism or religion. The west will NEVER conquor Islam, and trying to do so is misguided. The key is to encourage moderate Islam to incorporate a western value system of freedom and a respect for individuality.
Agreed 100%. Whether or not you agree with your neighbors’ beliefs, respect the fact that theirs may be different than yours.
And the west conquering Islam has already been tried. It was called "The Crusades".
You know, the victors write the history, often to their own advantage.
The native peoples were largely obliterated by the Europeans. The diseases were fortuitous uses of biological warfare; their existence was exploited by the Europeans as a way of removing the natives. If the Europeans had no ulterior motivations, they would not have occupied the lands of the dying natives.
I agree about the victors writing the history; that is VERY well established.
Native peoples have been obliterated by Europeans since the 1400s. But since the cause of disease wasn’t discovered until much later, I can’t agree with your assertion that the biological warfare was intentional –at least not early on…it may have been later.
Europeans had a “manifest destiny” attitude from the beginning, in that they believed it their right to go forth and conquer, and that their way was the only way. IMO, much culture has been lost due to this attitude.
…
2.Oppression of Women: Women only gained the right to vote, to run for political office, property rights etc. in 1920, in the US.
And in the 1960s in Australia!!
…
Humanism:
How about a simple statement: Killing someone is wrong, whether you're religious or not.
By the religious (Christian) view, killing is against the Commandments. It's also well documented in the Bible.
How about the Atheist? Also wrong. Why? Because if there is nothing after this life, then you are taking away the ONLY chance of existence of that person.
So I submit that by extension, this statement shows that humanism and religion can exist side by side. It's not necessarily whether you believe or not, but if you have morals based on fair treatment of your fellow humans. And before you jump all over that, CL8, I believe that if God exists He is a good and forgiving God and will give us a chance after death before sending us to the flames.
Of course I could be wrong; there are any number of religions under which my previous statement is worthy of death or damnation.
I shortened the Gladhatter’s post for easier reading:
…Islam …. In its fullest form, it is a complete, total, 100% system of life. Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military components….
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to agitate for their so-called 'religious rights.'
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies agree to 'the reasonable' Muslim demands for their 'religious rights,' they also get the other components under the table.
Here's how it works. (percentages source CIA: The World Fact Book - 2007).
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. In fact, they may be featured in articles and films, stereotyped for their colorful uniqueness:
This is the case in:
United States, Australia, Canada, China, Italy, Norway
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark, Germany, United Kingdom, Spain, Thailand
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves -- along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France, Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Trinidad & Tobago
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves … under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
I eliminated the other percentages, since I have no experience of them. Most Americans believe that Islam is a peaceful religion for the most part, in agreement with the above post.
For the 2-5%, I have a friend from Germany. He has told me about the situation there, and it matches what is posted.
Above 5%….well we’ve all seen the news broadcasts about France. We also have a member here at AF from Sweden….I haven’t seen him post for quite awhile, but he did have a long post a couple years ago about how Muslims there were demanding free land from the government where they could build their mosques. There were other demands also, but I don’t recall what they were and couldn’t locate the thread.
So it seems that this post of gladhatters is fairly correct, as far as I’ve mentioned.
I’ve also known several Muslims, and all of them said that the Koran is an instruction guide for how to live your life. I would say micromanage, because everything is detailed, from how to wash, eat, dress, and even includes your will, which is laid out to exactly who gets what and how much. And, yes, women get much less than men.
…
I will say this about both the Bible and the Koran, as well as any ancient text: If you are not reading the original, then what you are reading has been translated and edited several times. For example, how many versions of the Bible are there? I can think of the King James version and the New International Version offhand (thanks for the New Int’l, Rat) …and no, no others come to mind for me although I’m sure there’s an “official” Catholic version. I’m sure that some well meaning medieval monk changed some things when he was hand copying the texts, to match the current audience or the current church’s teachings. Inquisition, anyone? Yeah, they didn’t make any changes, did they? :sarcasm1:
The Islamic men I’ve known said that the Koran was translated from the teachings of Mohammad, word for word. But I’ve read a good bit of the Koran, and frankly the style of writing changes so frequently it was apparent to me that someone else had written/inserted many portions, so I don’t think that the Koran is as original as stated.
…
Islam is not the enemy. The enemy is extremist ideology, be it Islam, Communism, fascism or religion. The west will NEVER conquor Islam, and trying to do so is misguided. The key is to encourage moderate Islam to incorporate a western value system of freedom and a respect for individuality.
Agreed 100%. Whether or not you agree with your neighbors’ beliefs, respect the fact that theirs may be different than yours.
And the west conquering Islam has already been tried. It was called "The Crusades".
You know, the victors write the history, often to their own advantage.
The native peoples were largely obliterated by the Europeans. The diseases were fortuitous uses of biological warfare; their existence was exploited by the Europeans as a way of removing the natives. If the Europeans had no ulterior motivations, they would not have occupied the lands of the dying natives.
I agree about the victors writing the history; that is VERY well established.
Native peoples have been obliterated by Europeans since the 1400s. But since the cause of disease wasn’t discovered until much later, I can’t agree with your assertion that the biological warfare was intentional –at least not early on…it may have been later.
Europeans had a “manifest destiny” attitude from the beginning, in that they believed it their right to go forth and conquer, and that their way was the only way. IMO, much culture has been lost due to this attitude.
…
2.Oppression of Women: Women only gained the right to vote, to run for political office, property rights etc. in 1920, in the US.
And in the 1960s in Australia!!
…
Humanism:
How about a simple statement: Killing someone is wrong, whether you're religious or not.
By the religious (Christian) view, killing is against the Commandments. It's also well documented in the Bible.
How about the Atheist? Also wrong. Why? Because if there is nothing after this life, then you are taking away the ONLY chance of existence of that person.
So I submit that by extension, this statement shows that humanism and religion can exist side by side. It's not necessarily whether you believe or not, but if you have morals based on fair treatment of your fellow humans. And before you jump all over that, CL8, I believe that if God exists He is a good and forgiving God and will give us a chance after death before sending us to the flames.
Of course I could be wrong; there are any number of religions under which my previous statement is worthy of death or damnation.
CL8
12-17-2009, 03:13 AM
I think you misunderstand humanism. It is not a religion, nor is it a belief system. It is a philosophy and a guide to life which seeks to 'strive' to correct the inherent flaws of mankind through the use of logic, reason and altruism. "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Col.2:8
IMO humanity often lacks ethics because not all people are true humanists. Religion is no better.... often, places in the world, and in history where religion dominates often are extremely unethical.
Remember, organized religion is deeply flawed too, because the humans that invented it are flawed.
The key word in humanism is "strive" to achieve these goals....
Yes, and since all the striving of mankind has not achieved those goals, God decided to come to earth in human form to fix what humans couldn't!
Their goals are based on logic, reason and altruism.......which are, imp far superior to the goals of religion.....( spreading myths and fairy-tales....... bribing followers to do the bidding of religious overseers with fake rewards of life everlasting, wanting to take over the world..... defeating other religions, etc)"logic, reason and altruism" religions all their own.:rolleyes:
IMO humanity often lacks ethics because not all people are true humanists. Religion is no better.... often, places in the world, and in history where religion dominates often are extremely unethical.
Remember, organized religion is deeply flawed too, because the humans that invented it are flawed.
The key word in humanism is "strive" to achieve these goals....
Yes, and since all the striving of mankind has not achieved those goals, God decided to come to earth in human form to fix what humans couldn't!
Their goals are based on logic, reason and altruism.......which are, imp far superior to the goals of religion.....( spreading myths and fairy-tales....... bribing followers to do the bidding of religious overseers with fake rewards of life everlasting, wanting to take over the world..... defeating other religions, etc)"logic, reason and altruism" religions all their own.:rolleyes:
CL8
12-17-2009, 03:35 AM
CL8, you asked for it and I have some time, so aside from my apologies for the long post:
NP thanks Fred for the response!
…
I will say this about both the Bible and the Koran, as well as any ancient text: If you are not reading the original, then what you are reading has been translated and edited several times. For example, how many versions of the Bible are there? I can think of the King James version and the New International Version offhand (thanks for the New Int’l, Rat) …and no, no others come to mind for me although I’m sure there’s an “official” Catholic version. I’m sure that some well meaning medieval monk changed some things when he was hand copying the texts, to match the current audience or the current church’s teachings. Inquisition, anyone? Yeah, they didn’t make any changes, did they? :sarcasm1:
I would suggest you read the book "Defending the King James Bible" by D.A. Waite. It shows HOW God preserves his word through translation.
Humanism:
How about a simple statement: Killing someone is wrong, whether you're religious or not.
By the religious (Christian) view, killing is against the Commandments. It's also well documented in the Bible.
How about the Atheist? Also wrong. Why? Because if there is nothing after this life, then you are taking away the ONLY chance of existence of that person.
So I submit that by extension, this statement shows that humanism and religion can exist side by side. It's not necessarily whether you believe or not, but if you have morals based on fair treatment of your fellow humans. And before you jump all over that, CL8, I believe that if God exists He is a good and forgiving God and will give us a chance after death before sending us to the flames.Why take that chance if you might be wrong? Get your heart right with God today!
And according to this site Humanism IS a religion
http://www.lex-rex.com/humanism.html
NP thanks Fred for the response!
…
I will say this about both the Bible and the Koran, as well as any ancient text: If you are not reading the original, then what you are reading has been translated and edited several times. For example, how many versions of the Bible are there? I can think of the King James version and the New International Version offhand (thanks for the New Int’l, Rat) …and no, no others come to mind for me although I’m sure there’s an “official” Catholic version. I’m sure that some well meaning medieval monk changed some things when he was hand copying the texts, to match the current audience or the current church’s teachings. Inquisition, anyone? Yeah, they didn’t make any changes, did they? :sarcasm1:
I would suggest you read the book "Defending the King James Bible" by D.A. Waite. It shows HOW God preserves his word through translation.
Humanism:
How about a simple statement: Killing someone is wrong, whether you're religious or not.
By the religious (Christian) view, killing is against the Commandments. It's also well documented in the Bible.
How about the Atheist? Also wrong. Why? Because if there is nothing after this life, then you are taking away the ONLY chance of existence of that person.
So I submit that by extension, this statement shows that humanism and religion can exist side by side. It's not necessarily whether you believe or not, but if you have morals based on fair treatment of your fellow humans. And before you jump all over that, CL8, I believe that if God exists He is a good and forgiving God and will give us a chance after death before sending us to the flames.Why take that chance if you might be wrong? Get your heart right with God today!
And according to this site Humanism IS a religion
http://www.lex-rex.com/humanism.html
fredjacksonsan
12-17-2009, 09:55 AM
I would suggest you read the book "Defending the King James Bible" by D.A. Waite. It shows HOW God preserves his word through translation.
Why take that chance if you might be wrong? Get your heart right with God today!
And according to this site Humanism IS a religion
http://www.lex-rex.com/humanism.html
1-- when I have the time, I'll try to remember to pick up that book and have a look. However may I suggest that the very title indicates it is written by someone who believes only the King James version is the correct, or "correctly translated" version? If God indeed protects His message through translation, then all versions of the Bible should be the same, or very close to it.
2--I believe my heart IS in the right place. I was raised Catholic, but over the years have moved towards becoming agnostic. I WANT to believe, I really do, but find it difficult to do so. I envy people such as yourself that can have complete faith, and hope that when my turn comes I am given the same opportunity that Doubting Thomas was.
3-- Humanism a religion? OK that's one (1) site. I'm sure that you could call just about any strong conviction or set of values a religion, in the loosest sense of the word. I don't understand why people have to classify and organize everything. Why can't those that choose to worship do so, in their own way, without judging others for the way they worship?
Why take that chance if you might be wrong? Get your heart right with God today!
And according to this site Humanism IS a religion
http://www.lex-rex.com/humanism.html
1-- when I have the time, I'll try to remember to pick up that book and have a look. However may I suggest that the very title indicates it is written by someone who believes only the King James version is the correct, or "correctly translated" version? If God indeed protects His message through translation, then all versions of the Bible should be the same, or very close to it.
2--I believe my heart IS in the right place. I was raised Catholic, but over the years have moved towards becoming agnostic. I WANT to believe, I really do, but find it difficult to do so. I envy people such as yourself that can have complete faith, and hope that when my turn comes I am given the same opportunity that Doubting Thomas was.
3-- Humanism a religion? OK that's one (1) site. I'm sure that you could call just about any strong conviction or set of values a religion, in the loosest sense of the word. I don't understand why people have to classify and organize everything. Why can't those that choose to worship do so, in their own way, without judging others for the way they worship?
drunken monkey
12-17-2009, 11:15 AM
I recomment a book called "Zen and the Birds of Appetite (http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Birds-Appetite-Thomas-Merton/dp/081120104X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261070168&sr=8-1)" by Thomas Merton.
CL8
12-17-2009, 12:38 PM
1-- when I have the time, I'll try to remember to pick up that book and have a look. However may I suggest that the very title indicates it is written by someone who believes only the King James version is the correct, or "correctly translated" version? If God indeed protects His message through translation, then all versions of the Bible should be the same, or very close to it.
Yes they SHOULD be the same, but doesn't the term "different translations" tell you they are NOT the same they are all DIFFERENT?
The problem is, some people translate the bible into their version for monetary profit, that corrupts the translation, so does translating to fit your own religious doctrine.
Interestingly, of all modern bible versions, only the KJV is NOT copyrighted.that should tell you the translators were not out for monetaty gain.
2--I believe my heart IS in the right place. I was raised Catholic, but over the years have moved towards becoming agnostic. I WANT to believe, I really do, but find it difficult to do so. I envy people such as yourself that can have complete faith, and hope that when my turn comes I am given the same opportunity that Doubting Thomas was.I too was raised Catholic, but at the age of 17, Gods spirit came and performed a miracle of healing on me, and showed me, you can only get to heaven by FAITH, not any works like going to church or baptism, as the Catholic church teaches.
So I put my faith in Christ alone for salvation, then when a friend invited me to his Baptist church, I knew the truth was being preached there, so became Baptist.
Tell God to give you faith in him through Jesus Christ.
3-- Humanism a religion? OK that's one (1) site. I'm sure that you could call just about any strong conviction or set of values a religion, in the loosest sense of the word. I don't understand why people have to classify and organize everything. Why can't those that choose to worship do so, in their own way, without judging others for the way they worship?As Christians, we don't so much Judge, but out of love warn others of their sinful condition and need of a Savior for their soul.
Yes they SHOULD be the same, but doesn't the term "different translations" tell you they are NOT the same they are all DIFFERENT?
The problem is, some people translate the bible into their version for monetary profit, that corrupts the translation, so does translating to fit your own religious doctrine.
Interestingly, of all modern bible versions, only the KJV is NOT copyrighted.that should tell you the translators were not out for monetaty gain.
2--I believe my heart IS in the right place. I was raised Catholic, but over the years have moved towards becoming agnostic. I WANT to believe, I really do, but find it difficult to do so. I envy people such as yourself that can have complete faith, and hope that when my turn comes I am given the same opportunity that Doubting Thomas was.I too was raised Catholic, but at the age of 17, Gods spirit came and performed a miracle of healing on me, and showed me, you can only get to heaven by FAITH, not any works like going to church or baptism, as the Catholic church teaches.
So I put my faith in Christ alone for salvation, then when a friend invited me to his Baptist church, I knew the truth was being preached there, so became Baptist.
Tell God to give you faith in him through Jesus Christ.
3-- Humanism a religion? OK that's one (1) site. I'm sure that you could call just about any strong conviction or set of values a religion, in the loosest sense of the word. I don't understand why people have to classify and organize everything. Why can't those that choose to worship do so, in their own way, without judging others for the way they worship?As Christians, we don't so much Judge, but out of love warn others of their sinful condition and need of a Savior for their soul.
drunken monkey
12-17-2009, 03:33 PM
from the looks of things, you haven't really looked at the origins of the King James Version of the Bible.
MagicRat
12-18-2009, 12:54 AM
N
And according to this site Humanism IS a religion
http://www.lex-rex.com/humanism.html
Humanism is a religion the way a love of Taco Bell is a religion. A philosophical belief on logic and rationality as a guide for life is not a religion in the traditional sense.
That one site was a highly biased personal opinion written for the sole purpose of rallying the religious troops his or her cause. I have come across this before. Many religious people are deeply fearful and distrustful of atheism/humanism because they do not understand it. Also, they do not understand how anyone can live life without being ruled by a god and answerable to his alleged instruction.
And, like many people, the religious seek to attack and destroy what they fear and do not want to understand.
This article is hypocrisy. I find it ironic that this writer claims that Humanism is taking over the schools and other institutions. But obviously, he or she would be perfectly happy if his version of Christianity was taught in schools.
That article reinforces my observation that Christianity is all about propagating their message and spreading the Word to everyone on earth, at the expense of the opinions and views of others.
Frankly, if it was not for the struggle of the secular humanists of this world, we all would still be living on mud huts in the Dark ages, under the all - encompassing power of the religious hierarchy.
And according to this site Humanism IS a religion
http://www.lex-rex.com/humanism.html
Humanism is a religion the way a love of Taco Bell is a religion. A philosophical belief on logic and rationality as a guide for life is not a religion in the traditional sense.
That one site was a highly biased personal opinion written for the sole purpose of rallying the religious troops his or her cause. I have come across this before. Many religious people are deeply fearful and distrustful of atheism/humanism because they do not understand it. Also, they do not understand how anyone can live life without being ruled by a god and answerable to his alleged instruction.
And, like many people, the religious seek to attack and destroy what they fear and do not want to understand.
This article is hypocrisy. I find it ironic that this writer claims that Humanism is taking over the schools and other institutions. But obviously, he or she would be perfectly happy if his version of Christianity was taught in schools.
That article reinforces my observation that Christianity is all about propagating their message and spreading the Word to everyone on earth, at the expense of the opinions and views of others.
Frankly, if it was not for the struggle of the secular humanists of this world, we all would still be living on mud huts in the Dark ages, under the all - encompassing power of the religious hierarchy.
MagicRat
12-18-2009, 01:16 AM
2--I believe my heart IS in the right place. I was raised Catholic, but over the years have moved towards becoming agnostic. I WANT to believe, I really do, but find it difficult to do so. I envy people such as yourself that can have complete faith, and hope that when my turn comes I am given the same opportunity that Doubting Thomas was.
I understand your predicament. I had a mildly religious upbringing (Episcopal). I genuinly like most Christians, and I find contemporary religious ceremonies to be oddly comforting, like a warm blanket on a cold night, because I like the fellowship of other people.
But I am highly disturbed by the way most organized religions use sophisticated techniques to sway the opionns of the flock. Sunday services are like hour-long TV advertisements geared to sell products or services. If god exists and is able to influence people, then why do the religious work so hard on selling him?
I am also disturbed at the way religious leaders use religion, the bribe of eternal life and the threat of hell to convince or blackmail people to do their bidding, and adopt their opinions in issues that are entirely unrelated to the religion at hand..... which makes me think that often, religious leaders are motivated to exert power and control over other people.
. I don't understand why people have to classify and organize everything. Why can't those that choose to worship do so, in their own way, without judging others for the way they worship?
Following this, why are their such a wide variety of religions and belief systems.? If god really exists and really wants people to worship him, can't he tell us the best way? And why do people get so hostile with each other when people worship in different ways?
Of course these discrepancies and much more, conclude that ( for me), god does not exist. Religion is solely a construct of humans, and humanity is rife with different opinions, attitudes and ways of doing things. Which is why humanity is so charming..... and why I am utterly disgusted when some humans use fake religious constructs to cause real harm and strife.
I understand your predicament. I had a mildly religious upbringing (Episcopal). I genuinly like most Christians, and I find contemporary religious ceremonies to be oddly comforting, like a warm blanket on a cold night, because I like the fellowship of other people.
But I am highly disturbed by the way most organized religions use sophisticated techniques to sway the opionns of the flock. Sunday services are like hour-long TV advertisements geared to sell products or services. If god exists and is able to influence people, then why do the religious work so hard on selling him?
I am also disturbed at the way religious leaders use religion, the bribe of eternal life and the threat of hell to convince or blackmail people to do their bidding, and adopt their opinions in issues that are entirely unrelated to the religion at hand..... which makes me think that often, religious leaders are motivated to exert power and control over other people.
. I don't understand why people have to classify and organize everything. Why can't those that choose to worship do so, in their own way, without judging others for the way they worship?
Following this, why are their such a wide variety of religions and belief systems.? If god really exists and really wants people to worship him, can't he tell us the best way? And why do people get so hostile with each other when people worship in different ways?
Of course these discrepancies and much more, conclude that ( for me), god does not exist. Religion is solely a construct of humans, and humanity is rife with different opinions, attitudes and ways of doing things. Which is why humanity is so charming..... and why I am utterly disgusted when some humans use fake religious constructs to cause real harm and strife.
CL8
12-18-2009, 01:59 AM
from the looks of things, you haven't really looked at the origins of the King James Version of the Bible.
As if you have?
Drunken Monkey, please, if you are going to be part of this discussion, contribute substantive information and facts, not just snide remarks or attacks.
As if you have?
Drunken Monkey, please, if you are going to be part of this discussion, contribute substantive information and facts, not just snide remarks or attacks.
CL8
12-18-2009, 02:22 AM
Humanism is a religion the way a love of Taco Bell is a religion. A philosophical belief on logic and rationality as a guide for life is not a religion in the traditional sense.
That one site was a highly biased personal opinion written for the sole purpose of rallying the religious troops his or her cause. I have come across this before. Many religious people are deeply fearful and distrustful of atheism/humanism because they do not understand it. Also, they do not understand how anyone can live life without being ruled by a god and answerable to his alleged instruction. Oh contrare MagicRat!
We understand it very well and see it's destructiveness upon people.
Atheism is the lifestyle of a rebel against what is right and good, because they want the freedom to keep doing all their bad habits.
And, like many people, the religious seek to attack and destroy what they fear and do not want to understand. It sounds like you are describing those who persecuted and killed Christian martyrs.
This article is hypocrisy. I find it ironic that this writer claims that Humanism is taking over the schools and other institutions. But obviously, he or she would be perfectly happy if his version of Christianity was taught in schools. Let God be true but every man a liar.(from Romans 3:4)
That article reinforces my observation that Christianity is all about propagating their message and spreading the Word to everyone on earth, at the expense of the opinions and views of others.The message of love and forgiveness over the opinion that people should get to live the way they want without consequence, even if it destroys themselves and others.
That sounds like a pretty good message to propagate to me!
Frankly, if it was not for the struggle of the secular humanists of this world, we all would still be living on mud huts in the Dark ages, under the all - encompassing power of the religious hierarchy.Prove that statement please.
Following this, why are their such a wide variety of religions and belief systems.? If god really exists and really wants people to worship him, can't he tell us the best way? And why do people get so hostile with each other when people worship in different ways?
Of course these discrepancies and much more, conclude that ( for me), god does not exist. Religion is solely a construct of humans, and humanity is rife with different opinions, attitudes and ways of doing things. Which is why humanity is so charming..... and why I am utterly disgusted when some humans use fake religious constructs to cause real harm and strife.
There are so many religions and belief systems because there are so many different people.
Remember MagicRat, Christianity is a relationship with the person Jesus Christ.
Other religions just emphasize rules to live by, not a love relationship with a Savior and creator.
Thats why Christianity is not just a religion, religion is man made, Christianity is God given.
That one site was a highly biased personal opinion written for the sole purpose of rallying the religious troops his or her cause. I have come across this before. Many religious people are deeply fearful and distrustful of atheism/humanism because they do not understand it. Also, they do not understand how anyone can live life without being ruled by a god and answerable to his alleged instruction. Oh contrare MagicRat!
We understand it very well and see it's destructiveness upon people.
Atheism is the lifestyle of a rebel against what is right and good, because they want the freedom to keep doing all their bad habits.
And, like many people, the religious seek to attack and destroy what they fear and do not want to understand. It sounds like you are describing those who persecuted and killed Christian martyrs.
This article is hypocrisy. I find it ironic that this writer claims that Humanism is taking over the schools and other institutions. But obviously, he or she would be perfectly happy if his version of Christianity was taught in schools. Let God be true but every man a liar.(from Romans 3:4)
That article reinforces my observation that Christianity is all about propagating their message and spreading the Word to everyone on earth, at the expense of the opinions and views of others.The message of love and forgiveness over the opinion that people should get to live the way they want without consequence, even if it destroys themselves and others.
That sounds like a pretty good message to propagate to me!
Frankly, if it was not for the struggle of the secular humanists of this world, we all would still be living on mud huts in the Dark ages, under the all - encompassing power of the religious hierarchy.Prove that statement please.
Following this, why are their such a wide variety of religions and belief systems.? If god really exists and really wants people to worship him, can't he tell us the best way? And why do people get so hostile with each other when people worship in different ways?
Of course these discrepancies and much more, conclude that ( for me), god does not exist. Religion is solely a construct of humans, and humanity is rife with different opinions, attitudes and ways of doing things. Which is why humanity is so charming..... and why I am utterly disgusted when some humans use fake religious constructs to cause real harm and strife.
There are so many religions and belief systems because there are so many different people.
Remember MagicRat, Christianity is a relationship with the person Jesus Christ.
Other religions just emphasize rules to live by, not a love relationship with a Savior and creator.
Thats why Christianity is not just a religion, religion is man made, Christianity is God given.
MagicRat
12-18-2009, 02:28 AM
Drunken Monkey, please, if you are going to be part of this discussion, contribute substantive information and facts, not just snide remarks or attacks.
Now, CL8, lets keep this in perspective here :)
A few posts back, you replied to my devastatingly logical analysis of humanism by quoting scripture!.
IMO, scripture is a literary device from a work of fiction; has little substantive weight and is certainly not a fact.
FWIW you would have better luck quoting from Lord of the Rings. :)
Now, CL8, lets keep this in perspective here :)
A few posts back, you replied to my devastatingly logical analysis of humanism by quoting scripture!.
IMO, scripture is a literary device from a work of fiction; has little substantive weight and is certainly not a fact.
FWIW you would have better luck quoting from Lord of the Rings. :)
CL8
12-18-2009, 02:51 AM
Now, CL8, lets keep this in perspective here :)
A few posts back, you replied to my devastatingly logical analysis of humanism by quoting scripture!.
IMO, scripture is a literary device from a work of fiction; has little substantive weight and is certainly not a fact.
FWIW you would have better luck quoting from Lord of the Rings. :)
I'm glad you admit it's in your opinion MR! And you admit, it at least has some substantive weight, meaning substantive information.
At least I quote something to back up what I say, Drunken Monkey doesn't quote anything!:rolleyes:
A few posts back, you replied to my devastatingly logical analysis of humanism by quoting scripture!.
IMO, scripture is a literary device from a work of fiction; has little substantive weight and is certainly not a fact.
FWIW you would have better luck quoting from Lord of the Rings. :)
I'm glad you admit it's in your opinion MR! And you admit, it at least has some substantive weight, meaning substantive information.
At least I quote something to back up what I say, Drunken Monkey doesn't quote anything!:rolleyes:
drunken monkey
12-18-2009, 08:49 AM
As if you have?
more than you or else you would have not said this:
Interestingly, of all modern bible versions, only the KJV is NOT copyrighted.that should tell you the translators were not out for monetaty gain.
i) Copyright is not about monetary gain; it is to protect the text and to protect the ownership of the text. Part of this is so that other people cannot alter the text and still call it by the name, nor can people distibute it without permission from the copyright holders. Money only comes into it in the modern age.
ii) The KJV is owned by an entity; the clue is in the name.
iii) The KJV was compiled and translated as a means to reduce the power of the Catholic Church in England and to garner a more followers to the Protestant way.
Yes they SHOULD be the same, but doesn't the term "different translations" tell you they are NOT the same they are all DIFFERENT?
The problem is, some people translate the bible into their version for monetary profit, that corrupts the translation, so does translating to fit your own religious doctrine.
This is a sign of the fallacy of religion.
In your own words, people translate and corrupt the translation for their own gains... except your chosen doctrine that is.
How convenient.
I too was raised Catholic, but at the age of 17, Gods spirit came and performed a miracle of healing on me, and showed me, you can only get to heaven by FAITH, not any works like going to church or baptism, as the Catholic church teaches.
How is this faith when according to you, you were shown something?
Faith would be if nothing happened and you believe.
As Christians, we don't so much Judge, but out of love warn others of their sinful condition and need of a Savior for their soul.
in other words, you judge them to be sinful.
Drunken Monkey, please, if you are going to be part of this discussion, contribute substantive information and facts, not just snide remarks or attacks.
what else can I do besides already pointing you towards looking at the Origin of the KJV?
Origin of KJV (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=origin+of+the+KJV)
Copyright of KJV (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=copyright+KJV)
I'll quote when it's neccessary.
Also, "substantive information"?
As MagicRat pointed out, you like to quote from the Bible and cite it as fact.
I can just easily cite Buddhist scripture or Confucius or dig out old Mayan or Maoi belief scripts but that wouldn't make them true.
I ask this everytime I am accuse of something; show where I have made a snide remark or attacked you verbally?
Anyway, you want snide?
Here:
scripture is a literary device from a work of fiction; has little substantive weight and is certainly not a fact
And you admit, it at least has some substantive weight, meaning substantive information.
I like how you completely ignore what is actually said.
more than you or else you would have not said this:
Interestingly, of all modern bible versions, only the KJV is NOT copyrighted.that should tell you the translators were not out for monetaty gain.
i) Copyright is not about monetary gain; it is to protect the text and to protect the ownership of the text. Part of this is so that other people cannot alter the text and still call it by the name, nor can people distibute it without permission from the copyright holders. Money only comes into it in the modern age.
ii) The KJV is owned by an entity; the clue is in the name.
iii) The KJV was compiled and translated as a means to reduce the power of the Catholic Church in England and to garner a more followers to the Protestant way.
Yes they SHOULD be the same, but doesn't the term "different translations" tell you they are NOT the same they are all DIFFERENT?
The problem is, some people translate the bible into their version for monetary profit, that corrupts the translation, so does translating to fit your own religious doctrine.
This is a sign of the fallacy of religion.
In your own words, people translate and corrupt the translation for their own gains... except your chosen doctrine that is.
How convenient.
I too was raised Catholic, but at the age of 17, Gods spirit came and performed a miracle of healing on me, and showed me, you can only get to heaven by FAITH, not any works like going to church or baptism, as the Catholic church teaches.
How is this faith when according to you, you were shown something?
Faith would be if nothing happened and you believe.
As Christians, we don't so much Judge, but out of love warn others of their sinful condition and need of a Savior for their soul.
in other words, you judge them to be sinful.
Drunken Monkey, please, if you are going to be part of this discussion, contribute substantive information and facts, not just snide remarks or attacks.
what else can I do besides already pointing you towards looking at the Origin of the KJV?
Origin of KJV (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=origin+of+the+KJV)
Copyright of KJV (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=copyright+KJV)
I'll quote when it's neccessary.
Also, "substantive information"?
As MagicRat pointed out, you like to quote from the Bible and cite it as fact.
I can just easily cite Buddhist scripture or Confucius or dig out old Mayan or Maoi belief scripts but that wouldn't make them true.
I ask this everytime I am accuse of something; show where I have made a snide remark or attacked you verbally?
Anyway, you want snide?
Here:
scripture is a literary device from a work of fiction; has little substantive weight and is certainly not a fact
And you admit, it at least has some substantive weight, meaning substantive information.
I like how you completely ignore what is actually said.
fredjacksonsan
12-18-2009, 12:44 PM
Following this, why are their such a wide variety of religions and belief systems.? If god really exists and really wants people to worship him, can't he tell us the best way? And why do people get so hostile with each other when people worship in different ways?
Not to presume God's mind but I would think that God, since people are created in infinite variety, might have made a multitude of religions, each with a regional flavor, if you will, to match the people in the area. People getting hostile with each other could be a test of free will and morals. I mean, after all whether you are Muslim, Catholic, or some version of Christian, it's the same Big Man Upstairs. (I won't speak for other religions, I don't know enough about them)
Atheism is the lifestyle of a rebel against what is right and good, because they want the freedom to keep doing all their bad habits.
True, in part for some. The trouble with making one statement for one group of people, is that it can only be true for some, but not all.
I have a friend who said he was an atheist/agnostic. He said that since he had a set of morals and standards that he lived by, that when he died, he would be better off than someone who went to church every week and appeared to be good, but then screwed over everyone they could during the week in the course of their business - in short, a hypocrite.
As Christians, we don't so much Judge, but out of love warn others of their sinful condition and need of a Savior for their soul.
in other words, you judge them to be sinful.
This is an issue that I have also. "Judge not lest ye be judged" or similar, is written in the Bible. Who is anyone to say that I am doing wrong? Isn't telling someone that they are doing wrong according to God's word a judgement of that person?
I mean, I must have formed an opinion of their behavior as being wrong to have felt strongly about saying something about it. And deciding they were wrong is making a judgement on their behavior. It may be difficult for some to not speak up, while others do so readily. IMO it's best to show them, by example, the better behavior without rubbing it in their faces.
--
I see that the King James Bible was one of numerous translations into English around the 16th century. Monkey's references show that the translation was, in fact, done in part by the Church of England to further it's own goals. I hereby restate my earlier opinion that all of these ancient texts, unless you're looking at the original, have been edited by someone along the line, either well-meaning or self-serving, and do not carry the original message.
---
We're pretty far afield from the original thread's thrust. I see that hatter hasn't posted in awhile...maybe getting away from Muslim bashing isn't to his taste?
Not to presume God's mind but I would think that God, since people are created in infinite variety, might have made a multitude of religions, each with a regional flavor, if you will, to match the people in the area. People getting hostile with each other could be a test of free will and morals. I mean, after all whether you are Muslim, Catholic, or some version of Christian, it's the same Big Man Upstairs. (I won't speak for other religions, I don't know enough about them)
Atheism is the lifestyle of a rebel against what is right and good, because they want the freedom to keep doing all their bad habits.
True, in part for some. The trouble with making one statement for one group of people, is that it can only be true for some, but not all.
I have a friend who said he was an atheist/agnostic. He said that since he had a set of morals and standards that he lived by, that when he died, he would be better off than someone who went to church every week and appeared to be good, but then screwed over everyone they could during the week in the course of their business - in short, a hypocrite.
As Christians, we don't so much Judge, but out of love warn others of their sinful condition and need of a Savior for their soul.
in other words, you judge them to be sinful.
This is an issue that I have also. "Judge not lest ye be judged" or similar, is written in the Bible. Who is anyone to say that I am doing wrong? Isn't telling someone that they are doing wrong according to God's word a judgement of that person?
I mean, I must have formed an opinion of their behavior as being wrong to have felt strongly about saying something about it. And deciding they were wrong is making a judgement on their behavior. It may be difficult for some to not speak up, while others do so readily. IMO it's best to show them, by example, the better behavior without rubbing it in their faces.
--
I see that the King James Bible was one of numerous translations into English around the 16th century. Monkey's references show that the translation was, in fact, done in part by the Church of England to further it's own goals. I hereby restate my earlier opinion that all of these ancient texts, unless you're looking at the original, have been edited by someone along the line, either well-meaning or self-serving, and do not carry the original message.
---
We're pretty far afield from the original thread's thrust. I see that hatter hasn't posted in awhile...maybe getting away from Muslim bashing isn't to his taste?
HotZ28
12-18-2009, 03:45 PM
Back on track, it's hard to be peaceful without a Mosque! :lol:
Muslim congregation to sue Lilburn over mosque, attorney says (http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/muslim-congregation-to-sue-243065.html) :disappoin
Muslim congregation to sue Lilburn over mosque, attorney says (http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/muslim-congregation-to-sue-243065.html) :disappoin
fredjacksonsan
12-18-2009, 05:43 PM
Back on track, it's hard to be peaceful without a Mosque! :lol:
Muslim congregation to sue Lilburn over mosque, attorney says (http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/muslim-congregation-to-sue-243065.html) :disappoin
...and it begins. Nevermind that it's a 20000 square foot building. Nevermind that it's going to cause traffic problems. Nevermind that EVERY OTHER RELIGION that needs more space upgrades on what they have, or build another facility on the other side of town.
Muslim congregation to sue Lilburn over mosque, attorney says (http://www.ajc.com/news/gwinnett/muslim-congregation-to-sue-243065.html) :disappoin
...and it begins. Nevermind that it's a 20000 square foot building. Nevermind that it's going to cause traffic problems. Nevermind that EVERY OTHER RELIGION that needs more space upgrades on what they have, or build another facility on the other side of town.
CL8
12-19-2009, 03:13 AM
more than you or else you would have not said this: Alright DM, tell me the difference between the Majority text and the Westcott and Hort text.
Tell me why the majority text is called the Majority text.
Tell me another name for the Majority text.
What is the Minority text and where was it written?
What is another name for the Minority text?
Why are there more older copies of the Minority text around than the Majority text?
If you have studied the issue you could answer these questions like I can.
i) Copyright is not about monetary gain; it is to protect the text and to protect the ownership of the text. Part of this is so that other people cannot alter the text and still call it by the name, nor can people distibute it without permission from the copyright holders. Money only comes into it in the modern age.OK, then the KJV translators weren't interested in claiming their translation was their own words or holding control of it.( they knew it was the word of God)
ii) The KJV is owned by an entity; the clue is in the name.
iii) The KJV was compiled and translated as a means to reduce the power of the Catholic Church in England and to garner a more followers to the Protestant way.Wrong! Apparently King James didn't like the notes written in the Geneva bible, he thought it spoke against kings, so he agreed to have another translation.
http://www.allabouttruth.org/king-james-bible.htm
This is a sign of the fallacy of religion.
In your own words, people translate and corrupt the translation for their own gains... except your chosen doctrine that is.
How convenient. DM, Please read D.A.Waites book "Defending The King James Bible."
How is this faith when according to you, you were shown something?
Faith would be if nothing happened and you believe.Well I have never seen God the Father or God the Son, but I still believe.
And I could have chosen to believe my healing was just an act of nature.
in other words, you judge them to be sinful.No, the word of God judges them (and me) to be sinful.
I just tell what the bible says.
what else can I do besides already pointing you towards looking at the Origin of the KJV?
Origin of KJV (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=origin+of+the+KJV)
Copyright of KJV (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=copyright+KJV)
I'll quote when it's neccessary.
Also, "substantive information"?
As MagicRat pointed out, you like to quote from the Bible and cite it as fact.
I can just easily cite Buddhist scripture or Confucius or dig out old Mayan or Maoi belief scripts but that wouldn't make them true.Yes, but you could quote them to cite facts about those religions.
I ask this everytime I am accuse of something; show where I have made a snide remark or attacked you verbally? from the looks of things, you haven't really looked at the origins of the King James Version of the Bible. This is a snide attack because I obviously have looked at the origins of the KJV, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested a book about it! And this:I recomment a book called "Zen and the Birds of Appetite (http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Birds-Appetite-Thomas-Merton/dp/081120104X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261070168&sr=8-1)" by Thomas Merton. You said only to mock me __________________u want snide?
Yes, I know MagicRat can get snide, but at least he is thoughtful and presents a decent argument with it. (As opposed to just one flippant remark here and there):rolleyes:
Tell me why the majority text is called the Majority text.
Tell me another name for the Majority text.
What is the Minority text and where was it written?
What is another name for the Minority text?
Why are there more older copies of the Minority text around than the Majority text?
If you have studied the issue you could answer these questions like I can.
i) Copyright is not about monetary gain; it is to protect the text and to protect the ownership of the text. Part of this is so that other people cannot alter the text and still call it by the name, nor can people distibute it without permission from the copyright holders. Money only comes into it in the modern age.OK, then the KJV translators weren't interested in claiming their translation was their own words or holding control of it.( they knew it was the word of God)
ii) The KJV is owned by an entity; the clue is in the name.
iii) The KJV was compiled and translated as a means to reduce the power of the Catholic Church in England and to garner a more followers to the Protestant way.Wrong! Apparently King James didn't like the notes written in the Geneva bible, he thought it spoke against kings, so he agreed to have another translation.
http://www.allabouttruth.org/king-james-bible.htm
This is a sign of the fallacy of religion.
In your own words, people translate and corrupt the translation for their own gains... except your chosen doctrine that is.
How convenient. DM, Please read D.A.Waites book "Defending The King James Bible."
How is this faith when according to you, you were shown something?
Faith would be if nothing happened and you believe.Well I have never seen God the Father or God the Son, but I still believe.
And I could have chosen to believe my healing was just an act of nature.
in other words, you judge them to be sinful.No, the word of God judges them (and me) to be sinful.
I just tell what the bible says.
what else can I do besides already pointing you towards looking at the Origin of the KJV?
Origin of KJV (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=origin+of+the+KJV)
Copyright of KJV (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=copyright+KJV)
I'll quote when it's neccessary.
Also, "substantive information"?
As MagicRat pointed out, you like to quote from the Bible and cite it as fact.
I can just easily cite Buddhist scripture or Confucius or dig out old Mayan or Maoi belief scripts but that wouldn't make them true.Yes, but you could quote them to cite facts about those religions.
I ask this everytime I am accuse of something; show where I have made a snide remark or attacked you verbally? from the looks of things, you haven't really looked at the origins of the King James Version of the Bible. This is a snide attack because I obviously have looked at the origins of the KJV, otherwise I wouldn't have suggested a book about it! And this:I recomment a book called "Zen and the Birds of Appetite (http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Birds-Appetite-Thomas-Merton/dp/081120104X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1261070168&sr=8-1)" by Thomas Merton. You said only to mock me __________________u want snide?
Yes, I know MagicRat can get snide, but at least he is thoughtful and presents a decent argument with it. (As opposed to just one flippant remark here and there):rolleyes:
drunken monkey
12-19-2009, 08:53 AM
Alright DM, tell me the difference between the Majority text and the Westcott and Hort text.
Tell me why the majority text is called the Majority text.
Tell me another name for the Majority text.
What is the Minority text and where was it written?
What is another name for the Minority text?
Why are there more older copies of the Minority text around than the Majority text?
Wow, what a way to miss the point.
In case you missed it, which you obviously did, my remark was me being facetious.
I was alluding to the simple fact that you posted something without first fact-checking via google.
Posting some questions that I can or can not answer via five minutes of googling doesn't change the fact that what you posted was wrong.
Copyright isn't about money
The KJV is copyright to the British Crown (which may not be recognised by all countries but that isn't the point, nor is it the intention of what and why you said what you did).
The KJV was complied as a means to increase the power of the monachy compared to the Catholic Church in England. If you really can't see the social/economical implications of why a King would want a key religious text to be more favourable to monachies then that says all I need to know about the level of discussion here.
A philosophical question arises here; can a remark be snide if it is true?
As I said before, if you had taken a look at the origins of the KJV, you would not have posted what you did.
Re: healing/faith.
Except you believe that the healing was an act of God; that God chose you to heal personally. Can this be a sign of faith if you belive that God did something. It sounds too much like a circular argument to me.
I believe that He did it so therefore I believe He exists?
Re: quoting from religions.
I like to post facts where I can find them and when they are applicable.
I occasionally post from religions to show a point/counterpoint but hardly ever as fact.
Yes, I could quote them but to what end?
As MagicRat said, I supposed I could just as easily quote the Lord Of The Rings.
Re: books
I really do recommend Zen and the Birds of Appetite.
You have also totally missed the snide remark.
Here, I'll try again.
scripture is a literary device from a work of fiction; has little substantive weight and is certainly not a fact
And you admit, it at least has some substantive weight, meaning substantive information.
I like how you completely ignore what is actually said.
in case you missed it again; it's in blue this time.
Tell me why the majority text is called the Majority text.
Tell me another name for the Majority text.
What is the Minority text and where was it written?
What is another name for the Minority text?
Why are there more older copies of the Minority text around than the Majority text?
Wow, what a way to miss the point.
In case you missed it, which you obviously did, my remark was me being facetious.
I was alluding to the simple fact that you posted something without first fact-checking via google.
Posting some questions that I can or can not answer via five minutes of googling doesn't change the fact that what you posted was wrong.
Copyright isn't about money
The KJV is copyright to the British Crown (which may not be recognised by all countries but that isn't the point, nor is it the intention of what and why you said what you did).
The KJV was complied as a means to increase the power of the monachy compared to the Catholic Church in England. If you really can't see the social/economical implications of why a King would want a key religious text to be more favourable to monachies then that says all I need to know about the level of discussion here.
A philosophical question arises here; can a remark be snide if it is true?
As I said before, if you had taken a look at the origins of the KJV, you would not have posted what you did.
Re: healing/faith.
Except you believe that the healing was an act of God; that God chose you to heal personally. Can this be a sign of faith if you belive that God did something. It sounds too much like a circular argument to me.
I believe that He did it so therefore I believe He exists?
Re: quoting from religions.
I like to post facts where I can find them and when they are applicable.
I occasionally post from religions to show a point/counterpoint but hardly ever as fact.
Yes, I could quote them but to what end?
As MagicRat said, I supposed I could just as easily quote the Lord Of The Rings.
Re: books
I really do recommend Zen and the Birds of Appetite.
You have also totally missed the snide remark.
Here, I'll try again.
scripture is a literary device from a work of fiction; has little substantive weight and is certainly not a fact
And you admit, it at least has some substantive weight, meaning substantive information.
I like how you completely ignore what is actually said.
in case you missed it again; it's in blue this time.
thegladhatter
12-20-2009, 11:43 AM
I, for the life of me, can't understand how ANY civilized, sensible person could defend these maggots!!
THIS is so typical of their actions!! (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/indonesia-mob-of-1000-muslims-storms-a-church-under-construction.html)
Jakarta (AsiaNews) - Last night a crowd of angry Muslims, including women and children, attacked the Church of Saint Albert, in Bekasi Regency, about 30 kilometres east of Jakarta. The situation is now under control but the local Catholic community is afraid of an escalation before Christmas.
bastards!
THIS is so typical of their actions!! (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/indonesia-mob-of-1000-muslims-storms-a-church-under-construction.html)
Jakarta (AsiaNews) - Last night a crowd of angry Muslims, including women and children, attacked the Church of Saint Albert, in Bekasi Regency, about 30 kilometres east of Jakarta. The situation is now under control but the local Catholic community is afraid of an escalation before Christmas.
bastards!
MagicRat
12-20-2009, 06:55 PM
I, for the life of me, can't understand how ANY civilized, sensible person could defend these maggots!!
THIS is so typical of their actions!! (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/indonesia-mob-of-1000-muslims-storms-a-church-under-construction.html)
bastards!
So bigotry and intolerance exist in this world. This is not news.
The Swiss, of all people, acted as a nation to curtail the construction of mosques (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112900482.html).
So, bigotry and intolerance goes in both directions. Your attempt at Islamophobia is not helpful. The real solution is to promote the secular themes of religious tolerance and the rule of secular law, and free us all from the threat and oppression of all religions.
THIS is so typical of their actions!! (http://www.jihadwatch.org/2009/12/indonesia-mob-of-1000-muslims-storms-a-church-under-construction.html)
bastards!
So bigotry and intolerance exist in this world. This is not news.
The Swiss, of all people, acted as a nation to curtail the construction of mosques (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/29/AR2009112900482.html).
So, bigotry and intolerance goes in both directions. Your attempt at Islamophobia is not helpful. The real solution is to promote the secular themes of religious tolerance and the rule of secular law, and free us all from the threat and oppression of all religions.
fredjacksonsan
12-20-2009, 06:59 PM
...The real solution is to promote the secular themes of religious tolerance and the rule of secular law, and free us all from the threat and oppression of all religions.
Perhaps better said to free us from the threat and oppression of radical elements of all religions?
---
Note that Switzerland's Muslim population is at 5% of the total...based on the previous chart posted, that's when problems start to crop up. The article didn't mention if there had been any other issues, but one about France did say:
The mosque, which at 92,500 square feet will be France's largest, has become an emblem for the many native French people who feel uncomfortable with an immigrant population that, as its numbers rise, increasingly seeks to live by its own religious and cultural rules rather than assimilate into France's long Christian tradition.
The strain is particularly intense in Marseille, where kebab shops line the once-elegant Canebiere Avenue and North African Arabic seems as prevalent as French on the sunny cafe terraces where residents traditionally do their business and take their aperitifs. But Marseille is not alone; across the wealthy countries of Western Europe, growing communities of Muslim immigrants have created unease among native populations by seeking to affirm their own identities -- by building mosques, for instance, or wearing veils in the street.
I'm all for cultural diversity and respect peoples' right to act as they want at home. BUT if you choose to move to another country, you should join their culture.
Perhaps better said to free us from the threat and oppression of radical elements of all religions?
---
Note that Switzerland's Muslim population is at 5% of the total...based on the previous chart posted, that's when problems start to crop up. The article didn't mention if there had been any other issues, but one about France did say:
The mosque, which at 92,500 square feet will be France's largest, has become an emblem for the many native French people who feel uncomfortable with an immigrant population that, as its numbers rise, increasingly seeks to live by its own religious and cultural rules rather than assimilate into France's long Christian tradition.
The strain is particularly intense in Marseille, where kebab shops line the once-elegant Canebiere Avenue and North African Arabic seems as prevalent as French on the sunny cafe terraces where residents traditionally do their business and take their aperitifs. But Marseille is not alone; across the wealthy countries of Western Europe, growing communities of Muslim immigrants have created unease among native populations by seeking to affirm their own identities -- by building mosques, for instance, or wearing veils in the street.
I'm all for cultural diversity and respect peoples' right to act as they want at home. BUT if you choose to move to another country, you should join their culture.
CL8
12-20-2009, 07:06 PM
The problem with "secular themes" is that the highest anyone is accountable to is a corrupt, at least imperfect human being. With religion (Christianity in particular:smile:) All people are accountable to a perfect and righteous God, who has the power to make ALL things right.
The problem with Islam is that their belief of God is not so holy, merciful or righteous.
The problem with Islam is that their belief of God is not so holy, merciful or righteous.
blazee
12-20-2009, 07:45 PM
The problem with "secular themes" is that the highest anyone is accountable to is a corrupt, at least imperfect human being. With religion (Christianity in particular:smile:) All people are accountable to a perfect and righteous God, who has the power to make ALL things right.
The problem with Islam is that their belief of God is not so holy, merciful or righteous.
In other words... religious people (Christians in particular) are only good, if and when their fear of god makes them behave that way. Meanwhile, non religious people that treat others with love and generosity only do so because they are corrupt and imperfect.
I can see how it would be hard for a religious person to understand why someone would want to be a good person without being influenced by "god", but the fact of the matter is that the majority of non-religious people hold themselves to far higher moral standards than those that simply want to be good based on a belief that they will be rewarded in the afterlife.
The problem with Islam is that their belief of God is not so holy, merciful or righteous.
In other words... religious people (Christians in particular) are only good, if and when their fear of god makes them behave that way. Meanwhile, non religious people that treat others with love and generosity only do so because they are corrupt and imperfect.
I can see how it would be hard for a religious person to understand why someone would want to be a good person without being influenced by "god", but the fact of the matter is that the majority of non-religious people hold themselves to far higher moral standards than those that simply want to be good based on a belief that they will be rewarded in the afterlife.
MagicRat
12-20-2009, 09:27 PM
^^I agree.
The problem with "secular themes" is that the highest anyone is accountable to is a corrupt, at least imperfect human being. With religion (Christianity in particular:smile:) All people are accountable to a perfect and righteous God, who has the power to make ALL things right.
The problem with Islam is that their belief of God is not so holy, merciful or righteous.
The study of criminology and sociology is very complex. People, individuals and societies commit crimes and acts of corruption for many complex reasons. Being held accountable to god seems to be irrelevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/BG1026.cfm
Frankly, your statements are contradictory. If god does have the power to make things right, why has he not done so?
Is he sadistic and enjoys people suffering? Is he waiting for us to fix the world ourselves? Is he unable to fix the world? Why does he permit religions to exist which are, as you say, not so holy, merciful or righteous?
If god is perfect, righteous and that powerful, then the world would have no problems. The fact that the world is imperfect means god is imperfect, unaccountable or weak or.... does not exist. :)
The problem with "secular themes" is that the highest anyone is accountable to is a corrupt, at least imperfect human being. With religion (Christianity in particular:smile:) All people are accountable to a perfect and righteous God, who has the power to make ALL things right.
The problem with Islam is that their belief of God is not so holy, merciful or righteous.
The study of criminology and sociology is very complex. People, individuals and societies commit crimes and acts of corruption for many complex reasons. Being held accountable to god seems to be irrelevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/BG1026.cfm
Frankly, your statements are contradictory. If god does have the power to make things right, why has he not done so?
Is he sadistic and enjoys people suffering? Is he waiting for us to fix the world ourselves? Is he unable to fix the world? Why does he permit religions to exist which are, as you say, not so holy, merciful or righteous?
If god is perfect, righteous and that powerful, then the world would have no problems. The fact that the world is imperfect means god is imperfect, unaccountable or weak or.... does not exist. :)
CL8
12-20-2009, 11:54 PM
^^I agree.
The study of criminology and sociology is very complex. People, individuals and societies commit crimes and acts of corruption for many complex reasons. Being held accountable to god seems to be irrelevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/BG1026.cfm
Frankly, your statements are contradictory. If god does have the power to make things right, why has he not done so?
Is he sadistic and enjoys people suffering? Is he waiting for us to fix the world ourselves? Is he unable to fix the world? Why does he permit religions to exist which are, as you say, not so holy, merciful or righteous?
If god is perfect, righteous and that powerful, then the world would have no problems. The fact that the world is imperfect means god is imperfect, unaccountable or weak or.... does not exist. :)
MagicRat, the article you chose to reference from the heritage Foundation is spot on.
Did you read it all? The heritage Foundation is a very GOOD organization focusing on preserving the founding heritage of the U.S.
If you did read it you know it first stresses the importance of strong family relationships, especially the parent/child relationships. Including much love and affection.
It's no coincidence that the first institution enacted in the bible is the family (Adam and Eve)
Later WAAAAYY down in the article it points out how religious ethics and church is important to prevent delinquency in children.
(it specifically says "church" not "mosque"!)
It even sites religious based programs that have successfully helped young delinquents.
As far as your question on why God allows imperfection and suffering while he is perfect,
If a parent is an excellent driver with a perfect driving record, no tickets or collisions, yet has a teen who got his license to drive, the had several collisions and multiple tickets for traffic offenses, does that make the parents driving record an imperfect one?
(Not his driving Instructing ability:))
Furthermore, if that young driver got a conviction on a drunk driving offense, and spent time in jail for it AND SUFFERED emotionally and maybe a bit physically while jailed, is that parent imperfect in their driving OR just as a parent because he didn't bail his child out and rather let him SUFFER the consequences of his irresponsible actions?
From BLAZEE:
In other words... religious people (Christians in particular) are only good, if and when their fear of god makes them behave that way. Meanwhile, non religious people that treat others with love and generosity only do so because they are corrupt and imperfect.Blazee, the argument isn't peoples goodness, but rather Gods goodness.
Yes I agree many professing Christians live unchristian lives.
And many unbelievers live responsible, moral lives.
Though some of the most profane people I have come across were professing ATHEISTS.
The study of criminology and sociology is very complex. People, individuals and societies commit crimes and acts of corruption for many complex reasons. Being held accountable to god seems to be irrelevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminology
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Crime/BG1026.cfm
Frankly, your statements are contradictory. If god does have the power to make things right, why has he not done so?
Is he sadistic and enjoys people suffering? Is he waiting for us to fix the world ourselves? Is he unable to fix the world? Why does he permit religions to exist which are, as you say, not so holy, merciful or righteous?
If god is perfect, righteous and that powerful, then the world would have no problems. The fact that the world is imperfect means god is imperfect, unaccountable or weak or.... does not exist. :)
MagicRat, the article you chose to reference from the heritage Foundation is spot on.
Did you read it all? The heritage Foundation is a very GOOD organization focusing on preserving the founding heritage of the U.S.
If you did read it you know it first stresses the importance of strong family relationships, especially the parent/child relationships. Including much love and affection.
It's no coincidence that the first institution enacted in the bible is the family (Adam and Eve)
Later WAAAAYY down in the article it points out how religious ethics and church is important to prevent delinquency in children.
(it specifically says "church" not "mosque"!)
It even sites religious based programs that have successfully helped young delinquents.
As far as your question on why God allows imperfection and suffering while he is perfect,
If a parent is an excellent driver with a perfect driving record, no tickets or collisions, yet has a teen who got his license to drive, the had several collisions and multiple tickets for traffic offenses, does that make the parents driving record an imperfect one?
(Not his driving Instructing ability:))
Furthermore, if that young driver got a conviction on a drunk driving offense, and spent time in jail for it AND SUFFERED emotionally and maybe a bit physically while jailed, is that parent imperfect in their driving OR just as a parent because he didn't bail his child out and rather let him SUFFER the consequences of his irresponsible actions?
From BLAZEE:
In other words... religious people (Christians in particular) are only good, if and when their fear of god makes them behave that way. Meanwhile, non religious people that treat others with love and generosity only do so because they are corrupt and imperfect.Blazee, the argument isn't peoples goodness, but rather Gods goodness.
Yes I agree many professing Christians live unchristian lives.
And many unbelievers live responsible, moral lives.
Though some of the most profane people I have come across were professing ATHEISTS.
blazee
12-21-2009, 12:23 AM
Blazee, the argument isn't peoples goodness, but rather Gods goodness.
:rolleyes: Since when?
The post I was replying to, the post you were replying to, and the post he was replying to were all about people's behavior, not god's.
:rolleyes: Since when?
The post I was replying to, the post you were replying to, and the post he was replying to were all about people's behavior, not god's.
drunken monkey
12-21-2009, 11:23 AM
If you did read it you know it first stresses the importance of strong family relationships, especially the parent/child relationships. Including much love and affection.
It's no coincidence that the first institution enacted in the bible is the family
Circular argument.
Besides, what's that got to with anything?
What is surprising about the founding heritage of America (a place settled by Christians) would place importance on Christian beliefs?
Beliefs I should add that are not exclusive to Christianity.
I have to say, you really do seem to lack a grasp of the idea of historic and social context.
Besides, the first institution enacted in the Bible is Law and punishment for crime.
It's no coincidence that every nation since has used the Bible/God or other religious text to define their laws and to justify punishments/acts of violence.
It's no coincidence that the first institution enacted in the bible is the family
Circular argument.
Besides, what's that got to with anything?
What is surprising about the founding heritage of America (a place settled by Christians) would place importance on Christian beliefs?
Beliefs I should add that are not exclusive to Christianity.
I have to say, you really do seem to lack a grasp of the idea of historic and social context.
Besides, the first institution enacted in the Bible is Law and punishment for crime.
It's no coincidence that every nation since has used the Bible/God or other religious text to define their laws and to justify punishments/acts of violence.
MagicRat
12-21-2009, 10:38 PM
MagicRat, the article you chose to reference from the heritage Foundation is spot on.
Did you read it all? The heritage Foundation is a very GOOD organization focusing on preserving the founding heritage of the U.S.
If you did read it you know it first stresses the importance of strong family relationships, especially the parent/child relationships. Including much love and affection.
It's no coincidence that the first institution enacted in the bible is the family (Adam and Eve)
Later WAAAAYY down in the article it points out how religious ethics and church is important to prevent delinquency in children.
(it specifically says "church" not "mosque"!)
It even sites religious based programs that have successfully helped young delinquents.
As far as your question on why God allows imperfection and suffering while he is perfect,
If a parent is an excellent driver with a perfect driving record, no tickets or collisions, yet has a teen who got his license to drive, the had several collisions and multiple tickets for traffic offenses, does that make the parents driving record an imperfect one?
(Not his driving Instructing ability:))
Furthermore, if that young driver got a conviction on a drunk driving offense, and spent time in jail for it AND SUFFERED emotionally and maybe a bit physically while jailed, is that parent imperfect in their driving OR just as a parent because he didn't bail his child out and rather let him SUFFER the consequences of his irresponsible actions?
.
Imo the religious aspect of that article were very minor. As you said, they were WAAAAY down in the article. :)
I see no contradiction here, with my earlier posts.
Some religious ethics are good and thus appear in secular law. Also, some religious-based programs can provide valuable fellowship and guidance... all of which can happen without the fear of, or belief in god.
As for family... humans have evolved in the family unit. The earliest traces of hominids shows the presence of family units. It is a key part of human evolution, survival and culture, for milennia. So, imo, it is no surprise that the people who wrote the bible used the family unit as part of the first book:)....... and it is no surprise that the successful family unit is beneficial for raising children. Again, its been that way for milennia.
As for the rest of your post..... god is not a parent. You personally seem to hold god to a much higher standard than a parent, and give him extraordinary supernatural powers which parents do not have. However, god does not live up to those standards, nor does he seem to exercise the supernatural powers you attribute to him.
If god were all-powerful, he would have designed people so we would not get into trouble with the law.... we would all be happy and obedient. IMO the very nature of human suffering makes me believe that god enjoys suffering. He is a picky sadist who is alleged to be so wrapped up in the most mundane details of our lives. This is hardly the model for perfection.
Alternatively, as I mentioned before, he is not all-powerful at all or... does not exist. :)
Did you read it all? The heritage Foundation is a very GOOD organization focusing on preserving the founding heritage of the U.S.
If you did read it you know it first stresses the importance of strong family relationships, especially the parent/child relationships. Including much love and affection.
It's no coincidence that the first institution enacted in the bible is the family (Adam and Eve)
Later WAAAAYY down in the article it points out how religious ethics and church is important to prevent delinquency in children.
(it specifically says "church" not "mosque"!)
It even sites religious based programs that have successfully helped young delinquents.
As far as your question on why God allows imperfection and suffering while he is perfect,
If a parent is an excellent driver with a perfect driving record, no tickets or collisions, yet has a teen who got his license to drive, the had several collisions and multiple tickets for traffic offenses, does that make the parents driving record an imperfect one?
(Not his driving Instructing ability:))
Furthermore, if that young driver got a conviction on a drunk driving offense, and spent time in jail for it AND SUFFERED emotionally and maybe a bit physically while jailed, is that parent imperfect in their driving OR just as a parent because he didn't bail his child out and rather let him SUFFER the consequences of his irresponsible actions?
.
Imo the religious aspect of that article were very minor. As you said, they were WAAAAY down in the article. :)
I see no contradiction here, with my earlier posts.
Some religious ethics are good and thus appear in secular law. Also, some religious-based programs can provide valuable fellowship and guidance... all of which can happen without the fear of, or belief in god.
As for family... humans have evolved in the family unit. The earliest traces of hominids shows the presence of family units. It is a key part of human evolution, survival and culture, for milennia. So, imo, it is no surprise that the people who wrote the bible used the family unit as part of the first book:)....... and it is no surprise that the successful family unit is beneficial for raising children. Again, its been that way for milennia.
As for the rest of your post..... god is not a parent. You personally seem to hold god to a much higher standard than a parent, and give him extraordinary supernatural powers which parents do not have. However, god does not live up to those standards, nor does he seem to exercise the supernatural powers you attribute to him.
If god were all-powerful, he would have designed people so we would not get into trouble with the law.... we would all be happy and obedient. IMO the very nature of human suffering makes me believe that god enjoys suffering. He is a picky sadist who is alleged to be so wrapped up in the most mundane details of our lives. This is hardly the model for perfection.
Alternatively, as I mentioned before, he is not all-powerful at all or... does not exist. :)
CL8
12-21-2009, 11:16 PM
:frown:
"sigh"
How I wish I could open your eyes MagicRat, and Drunken Monkeys, and Blazees to the truth of God, his power and existence.
It's really not hard to see.
Just because suffering is not a pleasant thing to endure or see does not mean God is not still omnipotent, letting people make their own choices.
From MagicRat:
As for the rest of your post..... god is not a parent. You personally seem to hold god to a much higher standard than a parent, and give him extraordinary supernatural powers which parents do not have.
How many times is God called "Father" in the bible?
And I cannot give God any powers. He had all power before I was conceived.
"sigh"
How I wish I could open your eyes MagicRat, and Drunken Monkeys, and Blazees to the truth of God, his power and existence.
It's really not hard to see.
Just because suffering is not a pleasant thing to endure or see does not mean God is not still omnipotent, letting people make their own choices.
From MagicRat:
As for the rest of your post..... god is not a parent. You personally seem to hold god to a much higher standard than a parent, and give him extraordinary supernatural powers which parents do not have.
How many times is God called "Father" in the bible?
And I cannot give God any powers. He had all power before I was conceived.
CL8
12-21-2009, 11:20 PM
:rolleyes: Since when?
The post I was replying to, the post you were replying to, and the post he was replying to were all about people's behavior, not god's.
according to the bible, the only one "good" is God.
The only way a person has "goodness" is by the blood of Christ covering his sin, when he puts his faith in him.
We are ALL depraved sinners.
The post I was replying to, the post you were replying to, and the post he was replying to were all about people's behavior, not god's.
according to the bible, the only one "good" is God.
The only way a person has "goodness" is by the blood of Christ covering his sin, when he puts his faith in him.
We are ALL depraved sinners.
MagicRat
12-22-2009, 12:00 AM
:frown:
"sigh"
How I wish I could open your eyes .
Has this debate run it's course? Do you wish we could become deluded so you would not have to use any logical or rational arguments? I'm sorry; that's harsh. I appreciate all your efforts in this debate, I really do. :)
But an almost-unchanging, fictional construct, such as religion, simply cannot provide answers or evidence when faced with the sheer weight of constructive, dynamic scientific evidence combined with logical reasoning.
Seriously, I have been interested in this issue for decades and looked at it from both sides. I am convinced that god, or gods and their associated religions and paraphernalia are all a man-made fabrication because Humanity has had complex cultural, historic and psychological motivations to create a deity, or deities and associated religions.
Now, such religions continue to benefit some people and continue to harm and damage others. But such religions are entirely man-made and have no basis in any tangible fact, event or phenomenon in the universe.Of this I am sure. Indeed, much evidence, some of which has been discussed here specifically discredits all claims to the contrary.
And there is no decent evidence to support its existence. This fact is built into the structure of religion.... hence the need for faith.....firm belief in something for which there is no proof (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)
"sigh"
How I wish I could open your eyes .
Has this debate run it's course? Do you wish we could become deluded so you would not have to use any logical or rational arguments? I'm sorry; that's harsh. I appreciate all your efforts in this debate, I really do. :)
But an almost-unchanging, fictional construct, such as religion, simply cannot provide answers or evidence when faced with the sheer weight of constructive, dynamic scientific evidence combined with logical reasoning.
Seriously, I have been interested in this issue for decades and looked at it from both sides. I am convinced that god, or gods and their associated religions and paraphernalia are all a man-made fabrication because Humanity has had complex cultural, historic and psychological motivations to create a deity, or deities and associated religions.
Now, such religions continue to benefit some people and continue to harm and damage others. But such religions are entirely man-made and have no basis in any tangible fact, event or phenomenon in the universe.Of this I am sure. Indeed, much evidence, some of which has been discussed here specifically discredits all claims to the contrary.
And there is no decent evidence to support its existence. This fact is built into the structure of religion.... hence the need for faith.....firm belief in something for which there is no proof (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)
CL8
12-22-2009, 12:56 AM
And there is no decent evidence to support its existence. This fact is built into the structure of religion.... hence the need for faith.....firm belief in something for which there is no proof (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith)
Like "global Warming"!!!:rolleyes:
Like "global Warming"!!!:rolleyes:
drunken monkey
12-22-2009, 11:03 AM
Hockey Stick anyone?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
No, of course the planet isn't getting warmer; we're just imagining that the numbers are getting higher in that comparative survey.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
No, of course the planet isn't getting warmer; we're just imagining that the numbers are getting higher in that comparative survey.
blazee
12-22-2009, 11:19 AM
Hockey Stick anyone?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
No, of course the planet isn't getting warmer; we're just imagining that the numbers are getting higher in that comparative survey.Wow, didn't expect that to reappear after it was discovered to be BS.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
No, of course the planet isn't getting warmer; we're just imagining that the numbers are getting higher in that comparative survey.Wow, didn't expect that to reappear after it was discovered to be BS.
drunken monkey
12-22-2009, 11:29 AM
I thought it was the original that was BS'd; that's why I posted the newer comparision one that shows other proxy sample data-sets.
The thing that brought the comparitive chart to my atttention.
Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9F31DD081D81B91E&search_query=bbc+hot+planet).
The thing that brought the comparitive chart to my atttention.
Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9F31DD081D81B91E&search_query=bbc+hot+planet).
Shpuker
12-22-2009, 04:54 PM
Hockey Stick anyone?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
No, of course the planet isn't getting warmer; we're just imagining that the numbers are getting higher in that comparative survey.
http://perigeezero.org/treatise/timeline/files/page76_1.gif
Naw of course theirs no pattern.....
Ohh and isn't the BBC under investigation of fraud charges?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
No, of course the planet isn't getting warmer; we're just imagining that the numbers are getting higher in that comparative survey.
http://perigeezero.org/treatise/timeline/files/page76_1.gif
Naw of course theirs no pattern.....
Ohh and isn't the BBC under investigation of fraud charges?
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2025